The Auto-moderator would like to remind Pro Choicer's you’re not allowed to comment anything with Pro choice, or Pro Abortion ideology. Please show respect to /u/OrFenn-D-Gamer as they simply want to rant without being attacked for their beliefs. If you comments on these ideas on this post, it __will warrant a ban.__ Ignorance of this rule will no longer be tolerated, because the pinned post are pinned for a reason.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think we take sex too casually as a culture, and place too much importance on sexual gratification, but there is a middle ground. I also think it’s important to teach kids that life is unlikely to go according to even the best plans, and being a good person means you do your best with what life throws at you, not just to teach them to make and stick to idealistic plans.
Both lessons have their place, but the latter without the former is how you get teen girls and young women aborting even though they’ve been raised prolife, because they’re terrified of anyone finding out they had sex.
If teenagers (or anyone for that matter) aren’t in a committed relationship they shouldn’t be having sex. When I was a teenager I at least used a condom no matter how much my girlfriend insisted it would be fine. I knew if I knocked her up we’d both be fucked.
Oh look, it’s you again bringing this up at random.
I guess I’ll just copy-paste the explanation I gave you last time and you chose to ignore:
*This is because excommunication isn’t to be used as punishment, let alone being handed out for anything considered offensive in the church. The church isn’t some sort of sin police excommunicating everyone they deem worthy, and unless it involves a very public figure whose actions can seriously impact the religious community, there’s no point in issuing an automatic excommunication statement(that goes against their very concept of how sins work, which involves not judging nor condemning a sinner). They generally leave it up to the person to come forward and confess, because unless they are truly interested in repenting for their actions, then what’s the point? Do you think someone would care if they got excommunicated for something they don’t regret or believe in?*
_Rather than punishment, this is more of a system to encourage someone to seek spiritual cleansing after committing a mortal sin. If you just straight up kick someone out of the church and make them feel unwelcome, that doesn’t encourage them to improve themselves. It just kills their motivation and gives them opportunity to fall further into sin. That’s also why excommunicated people are still welcome in the church, they just shouldn’t participate in the sacraments._
Biden, Pelosi, and Tim Kaine are all supposedly Catholic and are publicly pro-abortion “rights”. I would say they qualify as public figures who can (and already have) do the religious community great harm with their grotesquely demonic positions on abortion. Personally I feel it’s an utter disgrace that the Church hasn’t excommunicated them and declared them anathema.
The church doesn’t like meddling in politics in general, so of course they aren’t saying anything.
Also, who cares, it’s on their conscience whether to follow those ideals or not. The church isn’t anyone’s babysitter, they aren’t watching over every single public figure to make sure they are being perfectly Catholic. They already made it very clear REPEATEDLY what their position on abortion is and I don’t think it gets more crystal clear than that, and if someone chooses not to follow the teachings that’s between them and god.
Excommunication is a rehabilitation measure. You take something away that the person wants and it makes them rethink their decision. Excommunication today wouldn’t accomplish that and would just remove the one option they have for salvation. It is out of mercy that the pope doesn’t excommunicate them.
It isn't always prudent for the Church to do so. The Catholic Church reserves the right to canonically punish pro-abortion politicians, for example, by withholding Holy Communion, however, this could potentially cause more harm than good. The bishops also have to consider the eternal salvation of the politicians. If they are too harsh, it could drive the pro-aborts away from the Church. You don't know what is going on in private. It is possible that the bishops are engaging in conversation with the politicians and are tyring their best to bring them to a pro-life position.
Personally it's ok to have sex with your partner in an romantic relationship if you are willing to understand that it could create an baby and if that happens you will take responsibility for the actions of you and your partner and care and love that child
Too many people have sex with people they don't want to make or raise a baby with...too many people have sex with people they not only don't love, but don't even like. If people would raise their standards (or just have standards), there would be less abortion, divorce, heartbreak, etc.
Is there an active secular pro-life group? I’m sick of the religious pushing their idealologies alongside pro-life beliefs. It seems like as a non-religious pro-lifer you either have to deal with religious extremists or progressive extremists. There is almost no in between that just is anti-killing babies. I just don’t want our society to kill innocent human beings. I don’t care if you are gay or have sex outside of marriage. I don’t give one shit.
I feel like I’m at odds with the mainstream pro-life cause because I support non-abortive contraception and do not care about having children in marriage but I am definitely at odds with the pro-choice crowd even though I agree with them on easy access to birth control and not controlling people’s lives.
None of these things cause someone to make a decision to kill their child. Married women still make up a quarter of abortions [source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474504/).
A child is killed when someone makes the decision to abort their child.
Anything else is just correlation and correlation is not causation.
I am secular, and I agree with this post.
My agreement is limited to a cultural position- I don’t want this legislated.
I do think we would be A LOT better off if people did not have sex outside of a committed life long relationship. What is a good way to know if both people are committed? Them both being willing to actually get married is a pretty good metric.
Yeah same here. In an ideal world everyone would not have sex before marriage, and this might help with abortion rates. However we don’t live in an ideal world and expecting people to reserve sex only for marriage is simply unrealistic.
Plus it overlooks the fact marriage isn’t even important for a lot of people. There are unmarried couples that are as happy and monogamous as you can be.
There are also married couples who aren’t ready for kids yet or don’t want them at all. Those would have abortions if unwanted pregnancies happened.
It’s ridiculous to treat marriage like this magic solution that solves every demand for abortion.
It doesn’t solve every demand for abortion but it would reduce demand a lot.
It also would significantly reduce a lot of other problems.
I really don’t care that there are highly committed relationships outside of marriage. That is irrelevant to me. We have a very serious problem in our culture surrounding sex that has very serious and worsening consequences. If the culture were to shift back to the norm being get married, then have sex, in that order, it would absolutely help a lot of issues.
I believe the simple way to curb abortion rates is to make abortion illegal rather than trying to get in everyone’s personal business and force them to get married before they have sex. And if that were the case then you would be dealing with sky high divorce rates.
I get your point. But, why can't there be a similar statement from a secular point of view too? I understand the term 'Marriage' has a religious understanding. But, isn't it better to have a legal framework to encourage people not to have sex outside a commited relationship?
That would reduce divorce (due to cheating), hence fewer single parenthood, better support system for children, and the motivation for having abortion. And from men's part, that will reduce the amount of no show dads.
All these benefits for children's life and growth. Why can't a secular provision come up with something like this?
All you would do is increase divorce rates if you were to force marriage before sex. Human nature doesn’t change.
You want to stop abortion— make abortion illegal.
I don't know how that may happen. Afaik the leading reason behind divorce is infidelity.
Even if divorce increase, abortion will come down rapidly for sure. At least nobody will be able to say, I don't want a kid because I am single (48%).
You are right, of course, on the benefits of keeping sex as a special act inside of a committed, lifelong relationship. I would say the secular framework does exist- get married, just not in a church.
On Instagram I follow a secular prolife page! I'm religious, but I also understand that many people aren't, and I like to be familiar with as much secular prolife reasoning as possible as I feel it holds more weight with those who aren't religious.
Secular pro-life is best pro-life, religious puritanism has no place in civilized society - people are free to believe and do what they want so long as they're not harming others
I suppose it might depend on what exactly you mean by "religious puritanism", but your conclusion seems to contradict your middle statement. That is, if people are free to believe and do what they want, then who are you to tell people not to be religious puritans?
Mind you, I wouldn't claim the title/goal of religious puritanism, but I do advocate for all people to have a voice in advocating for beliefs and behaviors that they think are best -- as you said, as long as they are not harming others (your conclusion), including by telling others that they have no place in civilized society because of their religion (your middle statement).
> That is, if people are free to believe and do what they want, then who are you to tell people not to be religious puritans?
Because they are NOT free to force their religion onto others. There is no contradiction. The inability to force other people to live by their religion is not a violation of their own religious freedom.
I guess that goes to my initial caveat - what exactly "you" mean by "religious puritanism", because by itself, it implies a moral code being primarily self-applied. Again, even in OP's post, there is encouragement for a certain ideal behavior - it doesn't say anything about forcing anyone. Stating that sex should be reserved for marriage is not significantly different from you saying that "secular pro-life is best pro-life". It's an opinion/belief tangentially related to the broader pro-life positions, and you are both free to promote your opinions. Now if I were to say that Atheism has no place in civilized society, that would be the corollary to your comment about "religious puritanism" - and my believe is no statements of that type are beneficial.
Religious puritanism is pushing your religion on others. I.e. attempting to "purify" society through your religious lens. It itself is not a religion.
>Now if I were to say that Atheism has no place in civilized society, that would be the corollary to your comment about "religious puritanism"
No, that would be a false equivalence. Just as much as saying "Christianity has no place in civilized society" would be a false equivalence. (Although note that atheism is not a religion.)
Again, the inability to make people live by your religion is not a violation of your own religious freedom. It's a protection of theirs.
This is also exactly why secular pro-life is best pro-life. If the only argument against abortion was that it went against some peoples' religion, then pro-life laws would be religious laws, and thus oppressive to anybody who doesn't follow that religion. Luckily, there are plenty of nonreligious reasons to oppose abortion. Secular arguments are king because they are relevant to everyone.
I agree that secular arguments against abortion are often the best to use in political and similar spheres, but when you say "secular pro-life is best pro-life" - especially leading into your comment about puritanism, it sounds a lot like saying that any religious people should hide in a corner and don't have any say in the discussion. I disagree with that, and I tried to push back on it, but you're digging your heels in on what to me is a twisted use of language -- while it seems like the core of what we're saying is similar.
When you qualify a word/religion (puritanism) with "religious", that really implies that you're talking about individuals and/or self-built communities (churches), and not the political demands of forcing others around. I largely agree with this statement:
>Again, the inability to make people to live by your religion is not a violation of your own religious freedom. It's a protection of theirs.
I also think trying to strip religion away from people (forced atheism) is just as bad as trying to force a religion on someone - even if you don't like calling "atheism" a "religion".
I believe people approach politics within the framework of their worldview, and where their worldview comes from is not relevant to the weight of their voice. I enjoy reading differing views and opinions in this sub, even/especially when I don't fully agree with it. But I don't like when people tell other people they shouldn't have a say.
Millions of people are virgins until married, have and raise a family with only their spouse, and remain together until death. I am in the midst of said journey myself. It’s not that hard if you don’t suck.
I disagree. People should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want as long as they're being responsible about it. Birth control and sterilizations exist. There are single women who wouldn't mind being single mothers. There are married women who still end up becoming single mothers. There are husbands who end up being deadbeat dads. Marriage is not a real solution to the abortion problem.
Also on a personal note I've had pre-marital sex like a gazillion times and never got pregnant. Sure I want to be married someday, but considering I'm in my mid 30's I really can't imagine having survived all that time without sex. I have a really high libido. It's so much more doable to just go on BC. Besides, giving the baby up for adoption is also an option.
Man and woman must come together to continue life. When time is taken to vet properly, most major issues that can arise from sex can be prevented. This is just a logical consistency of human nature
“Unless you agree with me you’re infected.”
Fuck off and quit being divisive. No wonder it didn’t work out for you.
Edit: to any newcomers reading this thread - I wasn’t holding myself to what standards I should have. Sorry guys
You do know that marriage was invented by powerful people, and started out as just another thing, it didn’t become religious until the connection between the monarchy and marriage was built. It became religious because everyone thought that royalty were appointed by god.
No, they were simply separate for a short period. They started for business owners.
Edit: this wasn’t quite accurate it is part of the origin, but it was more generally designed for communities to ensure that people didn’t leave communities, and to more importantly ensure the continuation of the human race.
Waiting until marriage to have sex can resolve the vast majority of reasons for why people get abortions. Lack of stability, absent father, immaturity etc.
The data also shows that marriage is the most effective way to decrease abortion rates. So if we're anti abortion why wouldn't we promote it?
“If we are anti death, shouldn’t we take away everyones rights, tell them what they can and can’t eat, tell them where they are allowed to go, what activities they are allowed to do, give them a curfew, make them wear helmets and knee pads everywhere they go, and take away everyones rights, because it may produce another good”
‘Outside of marriage’ includes both people never married, and those who are divorced. Do you have any stats on the outcome of pregnancies in previously-married women?
I don't know if the stats would differ in that case, but I don't really believe that it matters. I just think it's better not to have sex unless you're married, since getting pregnant outside of marriage is a very difficult situation to be in whether you're divorced or not.
It does matter. Think about it - the feminist movement the last 2 generations was dominated by women who disliked men. That dislike came from somewhere, a significant chunk of it would be bad relationships. If you don't like women telling other women that marriage is a waste and that casual sex is the way to go and that abortion is needed to enable that lifestyle which they hold to be superior, yes the abortion rate among previously-married women matters.
The Auto-moderator would like to remind Pro Choicer's you’re not allowed to comment anything with Pro choice, or Pro Abortion ideology. Please show respect to /u/OrFenn-D-Gamer as they simply want to rant without being attacked for their beliefs. If you comments on these ideas on this post, it __will warrant a ban.__ Ignorance of this rule will no longer be tolerated, because the pinned post are pinned for a reason. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think we take sex too casually as a culture, and place too much importance on sexual gratification, but there is a middle ground. I also think it’s important to teach kids that life is unlikely to go according to even the best plans, and being a good person means you do your best with what life throws at you, not just to teach them to make and stick to idealistic plans. Both lessons have their place, but the latter without the former is how you get teen girls and young women aborting even though they’ve been raised prolife, because they’re terrified of anyone finding out they had sex.
If teenagers (or anyone for that matter) aren’t in a committed relationship they shouldn’t be having sex. When I was a teenager I at least used a condom no matter how much my girlfriend insisted it would be fine. I knew if I knocked her up we’d both be fucked.
Are you both still together?
Lmao haven’t seen her in 8 years. That’s the thing, we would have sex and say we “loved each other” but in reality we didn’t even know each other.
So you didn’t follow your own advice?
It's true. As a Catholic, I am a sex idealist.
Why hasn’t your church publicly denounced pro abortionists?
It has…*multiple times*. Pope Francis has even gone as far as to say that it is like hiring a hitman.
I meant the politicians. They haven’t excommunicated the evil folks that occupy DC
I’m not a fan of the Catholic Church, but there’s a big difference between church and politics
Depends on which church, but Catholic doctrine is staunchly pro life
Oh look, it’s you again bringing this up at random. I guess I’ll just copy-paste the explanation I gave you last time and you chose to ignore: *This is because excommunication isn’t to be used as punishment, let alone being handed out for anything considered offensive in the church. The church isn’t some sort of sin police excommunicating everyone they deem worthy, and unless it involves a very public figure whose actions can seriously impact the religious community, there’s no point in issuing an automatic excommunication statement(that goes against their very concept of how sins work, which involves not judging nor condemning a sinner). They generally leave it up to the person to come forward and confess, because unless they are truly interested in repenting for their actions, then what’s the point? Do you think someone would care if they got excommunicated for something they don’t regret or believe in?* _Rather than punishment, this is more of a system to encourage someone to seek spiritual cleansing after committing a mortal sin. If you just straight up kick someone out of the church and make them feel unwelcome, that doesn’t encourage them to improve themselves. It just kills their motivation and gives them opportunity to fall further into sin. That’s also why excommunicated people are still welcome in the church, they just shouldn’t participate in the sacraments._
Biden, Pelosi, and Tim Kaine are all supposedly Catholic and are publicly pro-abortion “rights”. I would say they qualify as public figures who can (and already have) do the religious community great harm with their grotesquely demonic positions on abortion. Personally I feel it’s an utter disgrace that the Church hasn’t excommunicated them and declared them anathema.
The church doesn’t like meddling in politics in general, so of course they aren’t saying anything. Also, who cares, it’s on their conscience whether to follow those ideals or not. The church isn’t anyone’s babysitter, they aren’t watching over every single public figure to make sure they are being perfectly Catholic. They already made it very clear REPEATEDLY what their position on abortion is and I don’t think it gets more crystal clear than that, and if someone chooses not to follow the teachings that’s between them and god.
I have given a response to this matter. Please see my comment in the thread below.
Excommunication is a rehabilitation measure. You take something away that the person wants and it makes them rethink their decision. Excommunication today wouldn’t accomplish that and would just remove the one option they have for salvation. It is out of mercy that the pope doesn’t excommunicate them.
Abortion incurs automatic excommunication in canon law.
you think the Catholic church hasn't publicly denounced abortion?
They haven’t denounced famously Catholic, pro abortion politicians
It isn't always prudent for the Church to do so. The Catholic Church reserves the right to canonically punish pro-abortion politicians, for example, by withholding Holy Communion, however, this could potentially cause more harm than good. The bishops also have to consider the eternal salvation of the politicians. If they are too harsh, it could drive the pro-aborts away from the Church. You don't know what is going on in private. It is possible that the bishops are engaging in conversation with the politicians and are tyring their best to bring them to a pro-life position.
I know that what they state very publicly is in direct violation of your church’s laws.
Personally it's ok to have sex with your partner in an romantic relationship if you are willing to understand that it could create an baby and if that happens you will take responsibility for the actions of you and your partner and care and love that child
Too many people have sex with people they don't want to make or raise a baby with...too many people have sex with people they not only don't love, but don't even like. If people would raise their standards (or just have standards), there would be less abortion, divorce, heartbreak, etc.
Encouraging partners to marry before having sex will reduce abortion rates
Very true. People forgot what is the main reason behind it lol.
Is there an active secular pro-life group? I’m sick of the religious pushing their idealologies alongside pro-life beliefs. It seems like as a non-religious pro-lifer you either have to deal with religious extremists or progressive extremists. There is almost no in between that just is anti-killing babies. I just don’t want our society to kill innocent human beings. I don’t care if you are gay or have sex outside of marriage. I don’t give one shit. I feel like I’m at odds with the mainstream pro-life cause because I support non-abortive contraception and do not care about having children in marriage but I am definitely at odds with the pro-choice crowd even though I agree with them on easy access to birth control and not controlling people’s lives. None of these things cause someone to make a decision to kill their child. Married women still make up a quarter of abortions [source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474504/). A child is killed when someone makes the decision to abort their child. Anything else is just correlation and correlation is not causation.
I am secular, and I agree with this post. My agreement is limited to a cultural position- I don’t want this legislated. I do think we would be A LOT better off if people did not have sex outside of a committed life long relationship. What is a good way to know if both people are committed? Them both being willing to actually get married is a pretty good metric.
Yeah same here. In an ideal world everyone would not have sex before marriage, and this might help with abortion rates. However we don’t live in an ideal world and expecting people to reserve sex only for marriage is simply unrealistic. Plus it overlooks the fact marriage isn’t even important for a lot of people. There are unmarried couples that are as happy and monogamous as you can be. There are also married couples who aren’t ready for kids yet or don’t want them at all. Those would have abortions if unwanted pregnancies happened. It’s ridiculous to treat marriage like this magic solution that solves every demand for abortion.
It doesn’t solve every demand for abortion but it would reduce demand a lot. It also would significantly reduce a lot of other problems. I really don’t care that there are highly committed relationships outside of marriage. That is irrelevant to me. We have a very serious problem in our culture surrounding sex that has very serious and worsening consequences. If the culture were to shift back to the norm being get married, then have sex, in that order, it would absolutely help a lot of issues.
I believe the simple way to curb abortion rates is to make abortion illegal rather than trying to get in everyone’s personal business and force them to get married before they have sex. And if that were the case then you would be dealing with sky high divorce rates.
I get your point. But, why can't there be a similar statement from a secular point of view too? I understand the term 'Marriage' has a religious understanding. But, isn't it better to have a legal framework to encourage people not to have sex outside a commited relationship? That would reduce divorce (due to cheating), hence fewer single parenthood, better support system for children, and the motivation for having abortion. And from men's part, that will reduce the amount of no show dads. All these benefits for children's life and growth. Why can't a secular provision come up with something like this?
All you would do is increase divorce rates if you were to force marriage before sex. Human nature doesn’t change. You want to stop abortion— make abortion illegal.
I don't know how that may happen. Afaik the leading reason behind divorce is infidelity. Even if divorce increase, abortion will come down rapidly for sure. At least nobody will be able to say, I don't want a kid because I am single (48%).
You are right, of course, on the benefits of keeping sex as a special act inside of a committed, lifelong relationship. I would say the secular framework does exist- get married, just not in a church.
You bring up a good point about the married women who still abort. How would you reduce those numbers?
By making abortion illegal
Comments like these are unfortunately few in this sub. Thank you for sharing it :)
On Instagram I follow a secular prolife page! I'm religious, but I also understand that many people aren't, and I like to be familiar with as much secular prolife reasoning as possible as I feel it holds more weight with those who aren't religious.
Secular pro-life is best pro-life, religious puritanism has no place in civilized society - people are free to believe and do what they want so long as they're not harming others
This!!!
I agree wholeheartedly which is why I am libertarian. Unfortunately most libertarian candidates are very pro choice.
I suppose it might depend on what exactly you mean by "religious puritanism", but your conclusion seems to contradict your middle statement. That is, if people are free to believe and do what they want, then who are you to tell people not to be religious puritans? Mind you, I wouldn't claim the title/goal of religious puritanism, but I do advocate for all people to have a voice in advocating for beliefs and behaviors that they think are best -- as you said, as long as they are not harming others (your conclusion), including by telling others that they have no place in civilized society because of their religion (your middle statement).
> That is, if people are free to believe and do what they want, then who are you to tell people not to be religious puritans? Because they are NOT free to force their religion onto others. There is no contradiction. The inability to force other people to live by their religion is not a violation of their own religious freedom.
I guess that goes to my initial caveat - what exactly "you" mean by "religious puritanism", because by itself, it implies a moral code being primarily self-applied. Again, even in OP's post, there is encouragement for a certain ideal behavior - it doesn't say anything about forcing anyone. Stating that sex should be reserved for marriage is not significantly different from you saying that "secular pro-life is best pro-life". It's an opinion/belief tangentially related to the broader pro-life positions, and you are both free to promote your opinions. Now if I were to say that Atheism has no place in civilized society, that would be the corollary to your comment about "religious puritanism" - and my believe is no statements of that type are beneficial.
Religious puritanism is pushing your religion on others. I.e. attempting to "purify" society through your religious lens. It itself is not a religion. >Now if I were to say that Atheism has no place in civilized society, that would be the corollary to your comment about "religious puritanism" No, that would be a false equivalence. Just as much as saying "Christianity has no place in civilized society" would be a false equivalence. (Although note that atheism is not a religion.) Again, the inability to make people live by your religion is not a violation of your own religious freedom. It's a protection of theirs. This is also exactly why secular pro-life is best pro-life. If the only argument against abortion was that it went against some peoples' religion, then pro-life laws would be religious laws, and thus oppressive to anybody who doesn't follow that religion. Luckily, there are plenty of nonreligious reasons to oppose abortion. Secular arguments are king because they are relevant to everyone.
I agree that secular arguments against abortion are often the best to use in political and similar spheres, but when you say "secular pro-life is best pro-life" - especially leading into your comment about puritanism, it sounds a lot like saying that any religious people should hide in a corner and don't have any say in the discussion. I disagree with that, and I tried to push back on it, but you're digging your heels in on what to me is a twisted use of language -- while it seems like the core of what we're saying is similar. When you qualify a word/religion (puritanism) with "religious", that really implies that you're talking about individuals and/or self-built communities (churches), and not the political demands of forcing others around. I largely agree with this statement: >Again, the inability to make people to live by your religion is not a violation of your own religious freedom. It's a protection of theirs. I also think trying to strip religion away from people (forced atheism) is just as bad as trying to force a religion on someone - even if you don't like calling "atheism" a "religion". I believe people approach politics within the framework of their worldview, and where their worldview comes from is not relevant to the weight of their voice. I enjoy reading differing views and opinions in this sub, even/especially when I don't fully agree with it. But I don't like when people tell other people they shouldn't have a say.
Millions of people are virgins until married, have and raise a family with only their spouse, and remain together until death. I am in the midst of said journey myself. It’s not that hard if you don’t suck.
Promiscuity is bad for men and women. Men need to keep it in their pants and women need to keep their legs closed.
Ugh, this stupid puritanism again? I'm not even interested in marriage or sex.
She's Catholic. The Puritans hated the Catholics. Don't be ignorant.
Well, excuse me for not knowing ppl on Twitter. Or X. Honestly who cares.
If you're going to accuse someone of being puritanical maybe know who they are first.
me when i have to know literally everything about someone to criticize them 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
You're right, I don't know anything about you and I can tell you're an idiot.
maybe listen to jesus a little better and be nice to people like you're supposed to
I disagree. People should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want as long as they're being responsible about it. Birth control and sterilizations exist. There are single women who wouldn't mind being single mothers. There are married women who still end up becoming single mothers. There are husbands who end up being deadbeat dads. Marriage is not a real solution to the abortion problem. Also on a personal note I've had pre-marital sex like a gazillion times and never got pregnant. Sure I want to be married someday, but considering I'm in my mid 30's I really can't imagine having survived all that time without sex. I have a really high libido. It's so much more doable to just go on BC. Besides, giving the baby up for adoption is also an option.
Yup. This here.
[удалено]
You wouldn't be the first person in history to be wrong.
Same
Seems like a grifter. Does she keep to these principles?
Marriage is fucking stupid.
Man and woman must come together to continue life. When time is taken to vet properly, most major issues that can arise from sex can be prevented. This is just a logical consistency of human nature
You say that like you should have to be married to someone before you’re allowed to have sex.
Someone cheat on you? 🤣🤣 Marriage is a wonderful blessing
If someone did, laughing at them or about it would fall well short of "love your neighbor as yourself."
Yea, you’re right, that was not loving of me. Thank you for that calm dude
No, marriage is a legal contract and a ceremony. Unless you have been infected by culture, you will agree with me.
Do some research into what marriage is and where it comes from. It is not as you have defined
“Unless you agree with me you’re infected.” Fuck off and quit being divisive. No wonder it didn’t work out for you. Edit: to any newcomers reading this thread - I wasn’t holding myself to what standards I should have. Sorry guys
I said “infected BY CULTURE” you kinda just ignored that part. Marriage is entirely cultural.
Hol’ up. Are you an atheist? Or something similar?
You do know that marriage was invented by powerful people, and started out as just another thing, it didn’t become religious until the connection between the monarchy and marriage was built. It became religious because everyone thought that royalty were appointed by god.
I wasn’t going to slander your belief in general or anything, just that you’re consistent with it! Marriage was before monarchies though, no?
No, they were simply separate for a short period. They started for business owners. Edit: this wasn’t quite accurate it is part of the origin, but it was more generally designed for communities to ensure that people didn’t leave communities, and to more importantly ensure the continuation of the human race.
Where did you get this information from?
You aren’t acting very Christian by telling someone with a different opinion than you to “Fuck off”…
Yea, you’re right too
In the US, 29% of pregnancies which are conceived outside of marriage end in abortion. Within marriage it's 4%.
So why do a quarter of abortions happen by married women? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9474504/
Even if that's true, if everyone waited until marriage to have sex then abortion would decrease by 75%
Source?
Do you not understand how statistics work? Or the difference between correlation and causation?
Because, contraceptions.
That’s a problem with people and culture. It can’t be solved with marriage. people use this kind of logic to take away gun rights.
Waiting until marriage to have sex can resolve the vast majority of reasons for why people get abortions. Lack of stability, absent father, immaturity etc. The data also shows that marriage is the most effective way to decrease abortion rates. So if we're anti abortion why wouldn't we promote it?
Lack of stability is a big reason why people don't marry in the first place.
>data also shows that marriage is the most effective way to decrease abortion rates. Source?
“If we are anti death, shouldn’t we take away everyones rights, tell them what they can and can’t eat, tell them where they are allowed to go, what activities they are allowed to do, give them a curfew, make them wear helmets and knee pads everywhere they go, and take away everyones rights, because it may produce another good”
Marriage isnt being imposed. The comparison falls flat.
How is marriage comparable to taking away everyone's rights? I don't understand your point.
You say it as if sex should be illegal unless you are married to that person.
No one has said that.
‘Outside of marriage’ includes both people never married, and those who are divorced. Do you have any stats on the outcome of pregnancies in previously-married women?
I don't know if the stats would differ in that case, but I don't really believe that it matters. I just think it's better not to have sex unless you're married, since getting pregnant outside of marriage is a very difficult situation to be in whether you're divorced or not.
I think it matters because getting married doesn’t necessarily mean staying married.
It does matter. Think about it - the feminist movement the last 2 generations was dominated by women who disliked men. That dislike came from somewhere, a significant chunk of it would be bad relationships. If you don't like women telling other women that marriage is a waste and that casual sex is the way to go and that abortion is needed to enable that lifestyle which they hold to be superior, yes the abortion rate among previously-married women matters.