I had half a dozen sexual relationships prior to marrying my wife. I also had sex with my wife for awhile prior to marriage.

My point is, looking back, our society and culture is way too casual about sex. Two persons can engage in intimate conversation about sex prior to marriage regarding expectations, etc., without having sex.

The abortion problem is primarily a symptom of the pervasiveness of sex out of wedlock.

Oh. So it was OK when you did it but no one else gets to. Got it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2022 01:32PM by dagny.

Imagine OP's surprise when he learns that married women get abortions too.

I'm just wondering since he claims sex prior to marriage leads to abortion, how many abortions did he cause?

No, it was not O.K.

Since when do people who enjoy sex are required to be married?

When we are more than just animals feeding our carnal desires.

Last days of Rome.

Rome is still there. I checked. Lovely city.

Maybe he means Rome, Georgia (ground zero for Marjorie Taylor Greene). That place must have fallen *hard*.

And you base this pronouncement on what, exactly?

Jacko Mo Mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The abortion problem is primarily a symptom of the
> pervasiveness of sex out of wedlock.

Rape is not "sex out of wedlock".

It is sexual assault.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2022 02:18PM by Nightingale.

You are feeling guilty and projecting. Marriage and sex have nothing to do with each other. It is a construct imposed by religion to trigger control and minimize out of wedlock births.

Your guilt and shows that.

People have been getting down since day one. Marriage or not. Abortions, happiness, fidelity are not in any way exclusionary to pre-marital or marital sex. Yuo have created a construct in your mind that has nothing to do with reality.

here is a thought: if you don't want to have pre-marital sex, don't.

The Greeks were a sign of the end of morality, then the romans, the goths, the Visigoths, Elvis, the Beatles, lady gaga, the protestants, don't forget WAP!

Whenever our brains tie sex to babies and babies to abortion we try to align that data as the cause. It isn't, just like what people do in their bed is none of anyone's business.

You had needs, like everyone does so you had sex, after you have sex people grow very pious and reflective on morality.


Kettle meet cat

You will find that some people on the Board who do not like your questions or comments will evade them while finding a way to turn them against you--truth, facts, and logic be damned. Thus, if you are scratching your head as to the accusatory, knee-jerk responses to your post, so am I.

There is no question that the sexual permissiveness that pervades current society explains at least in part the vast number of abortions that occur annually in the US, and presumably elsewhere. According to CDC statistics, the reported abortions in 2019 in the US was well over 600,000. To think that casual sex had nothing to do with this number is ludicrous.

Nonetheless, many are not prepared to equate premarital sex, or even casual sex, with immorality, as we were all taught growing up Mormon. I share this perspective, to a point. Although I do not think casual sex (sex without psychological intimacy) is immoral, I view it as a lost opportunity to elevate particularly special relationships by reserving sex for those relationships that involve intimate personal feelings (love) and some temporal psychological commitment (a desire to preserve the relationship through time). (Call me old fashioned to this extent.)

Notwithstanding one's personal views as to when sex is appropriate, in my view sexual responsibility *is* a moral imperative in any sexual relationship. After all, everyone having sex knows that the biological purpose of sex is pregnancy and reproduction, and pregnancy involves either the welfare of a child, or the destruction of a fetus, both of which carry profound moral significance. (As I noted in the other post.) In short, I find the number above--whatever its cause--outrageous, and symptomatic of a society that not only takes sex casually but takes abortion casually as well.

Think the LDS Church is intolerant and myopic, this site is equally close minded, intolerant, and shallow, if not more so.

I must be insane, i.e., coming here and expecting different behavior.

The church will not tolerate any dissent against itself, it's dogma or practices of any kind. You toe the line, you keep your private thoughts that differ to yourself or you risk being kicked out.

Here, you welcome to assert any idea you like (except that the mormon church is the repository of all truth), but unless you can back your ideas up with logic, or fact, you can expect to be challenged on those ideas. So yes, there's a type of intolerance in both, but that is the only similarity. You're welcome here so long as you can back up your assertions.

"...the reported abortions in 2019 in the US was well over 600,000..."

Okay, and the number of US adults having sex, multiplied by the number of times they have sex...

Kind of makes that number look rather tiny.

Besides, I don't think people are more sexually active than in times past. They're just more open and honest about it.

Of all the people I've known who've talked about their sex lives, the only sex they've regretted was bad sex. And "bad" covers things like poor technique, not liking the other person that much, not being in the mood, getting belittled, not being respected, being physically harmed, being manipulated, and so on. It wasn't a matter of "I shouldn't have had sex." It was "I shouldn't have had sex with that person." Sometimes "that person" was their spouse.

those are amateur numbers OPie ~


you should have pumped those numbers up ~

You might want to look around a bit and ask some questions, like what is the rate of premarital sex in other first world countries. What is the rate of birth control use in those same countries and what is access like. What are their attitudes towards sex education and sexual responsibility. And then lastly, what is the abortion rate. Because a lot of the anti-sex sentiment here sure seems like good old fashioned American Puritanism and Victoriana.

Good point.

A lot of the other advanced countries have more premarital sex and considerably less abortion. Social/religious/educational culture is what matters here--and the US mix doesn't work well.

Not only that, everyone knows that when you insist upon marriage before sex, and ban access to birth control and abortion, you do not get utopia. Instead you get a lot of unintended consequences like outlaw abortions, teen marriage, unwanted and uncared for children, matricide, infanticide, child poverty, etc., etc., etc.

Yep.

The best policy is to treat sex as a natural human experience and to make available, and encourage, frank discussion and contraception.

The worst policy is to demonize sex and discourage planning, contraception, and frank discussion in the family, among friends, and with parents.

I would say having bad parents is better than having no parents, and childhood poverty? What the heck is that? Right now we have an obesity problem, half the kids right now are as big as cows. And they carry these habits into adulthood and get even bigger, So this line from the media about ending childhood hunger and is a bunch of nonsense. Twinkies for everyone!

But yes I agree with op unwanted children is the result of sex out of wedlock. Abortions results. This is why I say we need to make things less convenient for experimenting teens, get rid of the safety net, planned parenthood, let's go back to how it was before the 1960s. People were more responsible.

Also I agree with Henry Bemis, 600,000 abortions is outrages! Today on npr they said we had 1,000,000 deaths for covid and look how emotional the media is. We shut the place down for near two years and spent 7 trillion on who knows what, but when it comes to 600 000 babies well that's another story.

That's the beauty of living in a democracy. You can pretend it's 1955 all you like. It's not hurting anyone. But a lot more people than you prefer to have things like access to birth control, healthcare, and life saving abortion health care service. You don't ever need to participate in any of that.

>>I would say having bad parents is better than having no parents, and childhood poverty? What the heck is that? Right now we have an obesity problem, half the kids right now are as big as cows. And they carry these habits into adulthood and get even bigger, So this line from the media about ending childhood hunger and is a bunch of nonsense. Twinkies for everyone!

Oh, Maca. You sweet summer child. My school district used to have a custom of teachers paying home visits to students and their families. I saw one house with not one stick of furniture in it. Well, they did have a mattress on the living room floor. That was it. I saw houses with zero, zip, nada, no food in the refrigerator. As for the abuse...you really have no idea. No idea at all. I've heard stories from school social workers that are beyond belief.

So, you are sitting there in your position of ignorance and certainty, continuing to spout off like you have a clue.

I'll bet you any amount that Maca is overweight, and that's not including the adipose tissue between his ears.

I'm guessing Maca is just scared. He's no longer living in a world where he can't lose. Globalization has equaled the playing field to make opportunities for all kinds of people and that means competition. Being competitive is not longer a given. People like him want to turn back the clock and blame everyone and everything that's becoming a little more equal. Because to them, equal rights means they have to lose theirs.

Bingo.

Maca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say having bad parents is better than
> having no parents

They should do a study on that. I'll guess there will be evidence that this statement is not 100% true.

Too, I guess it depends on your definition of "bad parents".


> and childhood poverty? What the
> heck is that? Right now we have an obesity
> problem, half the kids right now are as big as
> cows. And they carry these habits into adulthood
> and get even bigger, So this line from the media
> about ending childhood hunger and is a bunch of
> nonsense. Twinkies for everyone!

What the heck is childhood poverty? Uh, kids not having enough to eat, drink or wear? Etc.

The occurrence of obesity does not indicate that poverty doesn't exist. Rather, in many cases the two are intertwined.

Obesity in children is caused by many factors other than scarfing "Twinkies".

Type of diet and lack of exercise certainly play a role in developing obesity but so do genetic and hormonal factors as well as other influences.

Too, a child's diet depends on the parents' resources and to an extent abilities. And depending where they live and resources, again, they may not have access to play/exercise areas or equipment.


From the Mayo Clinic on causes and issues related to childhood obesity:

“Psychological factors: Personal, parental and family stress can increase a child's risk of obesity. Some children overeat to cope with problems or to deal with emotions, such as stress, or to fight boredom.

“Socioeconomic factors: People in some communities have limited resources and limited access to supermarkets. As a result, they might buy convenience foods that don't spoil quickly, such as frozen meals, crackers and cookies. Also, people who live in lower income neighborhoods might not have access to a safe place to exercise.

“Certain medications. Some prescription drugs can increase the risk of developing obesity.”

“Childhood obesity often causes complications in a child's physical, social and emotional well-being.”

“Children who have obesity may experience teasing or bullying by their peers. This can result in a loss of self-esteem and an increased risk of depression and anxiety.”

“Some studies indicate that too little sleep may increase the risk of obesity. Sleep deprivation can cause hormonal imbalances that lead to increased appetite.”

“Be sure your child sees the doctor for well-child checkups at least once a year.”

-----

It should be fairly obvious that some people face serious challenges in the basics of life, parents and kids alike that, in turn, give rise to any or all of the above issues, as well as additional ones.

For instance, the advice to ensure your child sees the doctor every year but in many places there is going to be the small matter of a fee for that MD visit. If a parent can't afford it then the child is not being seen regularly by a doctor, as recommended.

It's easy for people on the sidelines to say what others should do but many have a strong propensity to think we all equally share the same universe. For me, hey I can go to the MD every week if I want because I don't have to pay for it (universal health care in Canada).

I'm just saying that our own limited experience doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of someone else's. I give people the benefit of the doubt. My first go-to reaction isn't to cast blame, as far as I can help it.

Remember this old song? (Walk a Mile in my Shoes/Otis Clay):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUZOsrI7HJc

"Before you abuse, criticize and accuse, just walk a mile in my shoes."

"There but for the grace of God go you and I."

If we could all think this way more of the time, whether we leave in or take out the God part.

Maca Laca,
Your parents really need to limit your computer time. Why don't you go outside and play?

I agree with Devoted Exmo, Lottie, and others. Banning sex before marriage doesn't stop it. Look at the LDS church, for instance. It's not like LDS teachings have stopped unmarried sex.

It would be far better to have comprehensive sex education in schools and universal access to free, easily available birth control. Yet the same Puritanical attitude that fuels the OP's post also suppresses these commonsense, humane, measures.

They should never have gotten rid of the auto-da-fé.

it is my position that consensual sex between adults is just that BETWEEN THE 2 ADULTS INVOLVED and nobody elses business

+1 to the comments about Europeans having more sex before marriage, less marriage and fewer abortions than the US, due to reliable sex education, and widespread use and availability of contraceptives.

A recent column in the SLTrib also compared social statistics between Utah, Denmark and Germany, all of which have comparable GDP per capita and education levels.

Utah had fewer divorces. More obesity. Same life expectancy.

Utah had more than triple the murder rate, over 5 times the incarceration rate, twice the teen pregnancy rate. Utah is in the middle between Denmark and Germany on its abortion rate, though it is possible that Utah abortions are underreported (pills, out of state).

Utah has triple the suicide rate, four times the workplace fatalities, 35% more infant mortality. Germany/Denmark have up to 12 months maternity leave, part at full salary, part at partial salary. Those countries have guaranteed minimum 4 weeks per year paid vacation, high quality universal health coverage.

In-state annual college tuition in Utah in $7,000 to $8,000. It is zero in Denmark for citizens, $300 to $500 in Germany.

Utah's immigrant population is 9%. Denmark is 8%, Germany, 12%, so it is not like Utah is being held back because it is swamped with immigrants.


Yes, taxes are higher in Europe. And they get a lot more for it.


Somehow, I don't think sex before marriage is really our core problem.

Did you have an abortion?

Consider the possibility that there was no Eve, and she never tempted Adam with the apple.

I thought it was warm apple pie.

Guy, where is the evidence for your claim about sex being too casual? Because I grew up in the Morridor and saw the opposite; abstinence only sex "education," punishing any form of public affection, and shunning folks who aren't straight.

As for what to do about sex, I say get American schools to teach sex education that *actually* educates. Let them know what birth control options exist (I was in my twenties when I learned what condoms were), let them know the risks of STIs and pregnancy, and about consent. The part about consent includes letting folks know that saying "No" is an option that should be respected. Let folks be educated and decide for themselves whether to have sex before marriage or not. It's better than fanning the flames of a moral panic.

And, I just have to say it, it's not about a dissenting view that has me irritable, it's the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of your post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2022 07:20PM by ookami.

I’ve heard people arguing abortion my whole life. It never ends. Same shit. Different year.

Here’s a hint. Don’t bother arguing, you aren’t going to sway anyone one way or another. It’s a dead horse.

The purpose of the board is not to sway people one way or another, It is to discuss topics of interest.

I thought the purpose of this site was to help people recover from Mormonism. You have some traumatized people come in here looking for some advice and help.

I don’t think it helps arguing over the current political controversies and slagging people in here because their view differs.

The rights of women and the importance of personal autonomy are integral to the recovery from Mormonism.

The abortion debate always leads to the premarital sex argument. I always enjoy leading the debate to premarital sex because invariably that word slut is brought into the conversation. I always ask, "do you know what the definition of a slut is"? While they have a quizzical look on their face, I say, "A slut is someone who is getting more sex than you."

But there is such an easy answer! DrSnip.com Your insurance may even cover all or part of it. A great way to spend 90 minutes. Schedule on line. Have a day off your feet, what a treat! You can even get a Saturday appointment. Line 'em up boys!

This is what YOU can do with YOUR bodies.

Now don't get hysterical, Susan. Leave the thinking to the men: they know what's best.

Maybe they can get a group rate :)

I hope this made you feel better. Really, I do.

However, most men, as well as most women, do not want to be infertile, they just want pregnancy to be a choice rather than an accident. Surely you understand that!

Not surprisingly, it is the accidents that bring with them a genuine moral dilemma. And the fact that the woman bears the burden of the accident--and the burden of the abortion decision-- is a dictate of nature, and not the fault of men. Extremely unfair, yes. But then, women are not generally compelled to participate in unjust wars.

Moreover, it doesn't help one bit to deny or minimize the moral implications of the situation and act angrily or defensive when somebody (male or female) raises the moral issue, and pushes back against the comforting, but unconvincing, 'my body, my choice' rhetorical response.

So, let the men line up for condoms, and the women line up for the pill (or whatever). And before they hop into bed in the heat of passion, take 10 seconds to pause and decide what method will be relied upon to avoid the dreaded accident.

How simple is that?

Even reliable birth control used with fidelity can fail. No method of birth control is 100% effective.

Beyond that, there is a plurality of opinion in this country, and last I checked the majority of people support Rowe v. Wade. People who are pro-choice are not asking the anti-abortionists to have abortions. They are asking to have their own point of view, and their own wishes, respected.

That is pretty simple, summer, and the crux of the matter.

We are free to express our own viewpoint and follow our own course. By definition that means there will be different opinions and choices and there should be room for that in a democracy.

Especially if religious beliefs are involved because obviously we don't all follow the same path. How impressed would we be, for instance, if majority-Mormon communities legislated that attending SM was compulsory or that the names of dead relatives must be submitted for proxy baptisms? Extreme example but same principle. Let the Mormons do their thing and let others be free to refrain.

Even reliable birth control used with fidelity can fail. No method of birth control is 100% effective.

COMMENT: O.K. So, should women therefore stop using birth control? Few, if any, protective measures taken in life are 100% effective, but we try the best we can to protect ourselves. And some protective measures are legally mandated--regardless of personal convenience, bodily intrusions, or one's particular worldview--like seat belts, vaccines, and not driving while drunk.
____________________________________________

"Beyond that, there is a plurality of opinion in this country, and last I checked the majority of people support Rowe v. Wade."

COMMENT: Yes, but remember Roe does NOT stand for a universal 'my body, my choice' mandate. It is only your body and your choice within the first three months. After that, it is the government's choice, regardless of whose body it is. Are you O.K. with that? After all, the majority supports Roe, and that is part of Roe.

Moreover, Casey took the reasoning in Roe and limited the right even further. What happens when it is determined that a fertilized egg can be brought to full term in an artificial setting? Arguably, your Roe rights vanish completely. Still like Roe? This is why legal scholars--even the ones that want to keep Roe for social reasons--think that its reasoning is highly suspect.
______________________________________________

"People who are pro-choice are not asking the anti-abortionists to have abortions. They are asking to have their own point of view, and their own wishes, respected."

COMMENT: That is beside the point entirely. After all, slavery owners did not ask abolitionists to own slaves.

Personal rights--including rights related to one's body--are not unlimited, and never have been. That is why it is O.K. to legally mandate that hospital nurses subject themselves to the COVID vaccine, even if they think it will be harmful to them. Again, their body, the government's choice; and for good social reasons.

Now, you may argue that the abortion decision does not affect other people's rights and interests, as does slavery and vaccinations. But, again, the Roe court expressly stated that a fetus is a potential human life and has interests that society [government] has a legitimate interest in protecting. This places abortion on the same logical footing as any other government action--like outlawing slavery or mandating vaccines--that is supposed to protect general social interests. Still like Roe?

Finally, you can respect someone's point of view without adopting it as social policy.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, you can respect someone's point of view
> without adopting it as social policy.

That works both ways.

> That works both ways.

That is the hydrogen bomb of abortion arguments.

Thank you.

Nowhere, is anyone advocating for replacing birth control with abortion.

I think you nailed it when you said someone else having an abortion doesn’t affect others’ rights and interests. It really doesn’t affect the rest of society.

You are attempting to impose your moral views on other people. It’s none of your business. That’s always going to be the bottom line.

I couldn't disagree more. Americans tend to be too puritanical. Too many Americans spend their time worrying about what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors.

For me, sex before marriage was a must. What if I was terrible at it??? or she was frigid and terrible at it??? Or, if had we incompatible likes sexual habits and views? No thanks. I refused to spend my life with someone with whom sex was an unknown. Too important in a healthy relationship/marriage in my view. More important than money, religion, or politics. Wish I would have had a lot more practice in my youth when I was a mormon and sexually repressed. Took me years to deprogram the religious bullshit about sex. It's fun. I like it. Wish I had one more of it. I encourage all consenting adults to practice safe sex as often as possible.


HH =)

Promiscuity is on the rise? Well, according to this research, the percentage of sexually active people in the US has dropped to record lows — mostly among young people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/

Sure, the population has increased, so the number of sexually active people has probably increased, but not as a percentage of the population.

Very important.

There have been many, many studies that find what you describe throughout the West.

"Promiscuity is on the rise? Well, according to this research, the percentage of sexually active people in the US has dropped to record lows — mostly among young people."

COMMENT: Yes. Interesting study. But it is noteworthy that this trend, if indeed it is accurate, does not reflect religiosity, or an aversion to promiscuity. According to the article, the reason for this shift is cultural, not moral. There is no hint, for example, that this new abstinence relates in any way to concerns about unwanted pregnancies.

________________________________________

"Sure, the population has increased, so the number of sexually active people has probably increased, but not as a percentage of the population."

COMMENT: Well, whatever the actual numbers are; that is, the ratio between population increases and sexual activity, the conclusion is a trivial distraction in the context of abortion. Certainly not 'very important' as some might claim. Regardless of how one cuts the cards, there are still a hell-of-a-lot of people having unprotected sex, resulting in a hell-of-a-lot of abortions. After all--and not to be rude--isn't that what this thread is all about?

Remember 600,000+ abortions a year. So, we take into consideration the proverbial cases of the raped teenager and the motive of protecting the life of the mother. And let's be generous and claim that since sex is going down, abortions will go down. And surely there are cases where abortion is medically and morally appropriate in other contexts. So, where does that leave us? 'Only' 500,000 casual, convenience-related abortions a year? Well, then, I guess that solves it. What is all the fuss about?

The bottom line is that the vast majority of women (and men) are taking abortion as casually as they are taking unprotected sex. Abortion providers and their staff are appropriately loving, understanding, and non-judgmental. They assure you that this is all quite routine, and confidential. It is quicker and less painful than a typical wisdom tooth extraction. Simple and easy. What is all the fuss about?

Now, if you still want to wax rhetorical; you now, 'my body, my choice,' fine. The number of reported abortions in 2019, according to the CDC, is 629,898, almost equal to the entire population of Boston or Washington DC. Think about that the next time you feel the urge for unprotected sex; or outrage at Prolife protesters who insist that your bodily autonomy is not just about you.

This logical fallacy is based on typical conservative prejudice, also very typical in mormonism. Mormons love to say this kind of thing; they have no nuanced thinking, which would be possible if only they had more empathy and understanding for other people and the complexities of life and relationships.

The logical fallacy behind this is: people having casual sex will be casual about contraception too; therefore unwanted pregnancies happen due to a casual mindset about the risk of pregnancy; it only happens in casual sex, and marriage fixes this problem.

Firstly, sex outside/before marriage doesn’t automatically equal being casual about sex. I’ve been in long term or committed relationships that were no different to being married except that we lacked a piece of paper. Such a piece of paper would have made no difference to the sexual experience and proper (or improper) use of contraceptives.

Secondly, I’ve also had some encounters which were more casual in nature. In such cases, it is sometimes the case that contraception has not been used responsibly. In my experience, it is usually because at the last minute, the guy will refuse to wear a condom, thus making this into (a) a casual encounter because I will refuse to see him again and (b) something approaching a coercive/date rape scenario.
We can also assume that in this big wide world that there will be women who are equally irresponsible about contraception. However, I very much doubt (as others have pointed out on this board) that there are a high number of women who are so irresponsible that they use abortion as contraception. Women tend to suffer enough already with their bodies; no one wants to have an abortion. It is far more likely that such attitudes are the result of a lack of education. I have heard from some women (but notably many men) for example, who think the ‘pull-out’ method is effective.

It would be easy to say based on this that casual sex is responsible for higher abortion rates. But here are the nuances you are missing: It has also been the case that in longer term, committed relationships that (a) accidents /missteps with contraception have happened, (b) being with someone for a long time does not prevent them from becoming abusive and refusing to wear a condom. Example: a woman’s body changes over time/health issues develop and it’s no longer possible to use the contraceptive pill - man complains about condoms or refuses to wear a condom at the last minute. I can attest to the fact this has happened to me in every type of relationship and encounter.
Related to this (c) a person’s responsible attitude towards contraception is not based on whether they are having casual sex or sex within marriage. That might be the case - or not. I have been in relationships where the man will push for using the pull-out method. Whether this is due to a lack of education or an abusive mindset is a matter of speculation; the point is, this could come up as an issue within marriage, in a relationship or in casual sex.

This leads to another logical fallacy: that being married makes it less likely a woman will seek an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. There are a number of issues here. Firstly, the argument that an unwanted baby should be kept if you are married- that’s a whole other debate. But otherwise, unless a couple has strong views on abortion, religious or not, they might seek an abortion rather than have an unwanted child. Conversely, not all unplanned pregnancies outside of marriage are unwanted and many women choose to raise these children with their partner or alone.

This leads to another argument which is that sex is, or should be, fundamentally for the purpose of procreation. That’s a whole other topic which comes down to a difference of opinion. But it’s one that I don’t like because it is very ‘Mormon’.

I understand the view of: only have responsible sex and it’s more likely it will be responsible if you’re married. Even if that were always true (and it’s not) that is pushing for a mormon way of living: No sex before marriage, lots of repression, shame (and many other problems), guilt, pressure to marry, rushed marriages, picking the wrong partner, potential sexual incompatibility and a lot of unhappiness. If mormons had their way, all unwanted pregnancies would result in adoption or the couple keeping the unwanted child.

Even if abortion rates DID go down, this way of living is not some kind of utopia. It is hell.

The number of abortions aren’t simply explained away by casual attitudes towards sex. And when that is the case, sometimes it’s the man who is responsible; and that can occur in any type of relationship - this point could lead to a very long discussion about consent and women’s bodies and their right to choose and it’s been covered in other threads.

A better way to lower abortion rates is proper education about effective contraception and healthy relationships. However, sometimes with the best of intentions, women end up in bad situations (in marriages, relationships and casual encounters). This leads to (unwanted) pregnancy scares and sometimes unwanted pregnancies too. Marriage and conservative sexual attitudes only mask a lot of the issues, and as exmormons know, cause many other problems too.

Amen.

...and I'll add that the only time I've ever had sexual relations with a woman (it did lead briefly to intercourse), while we used a condom, she told me that she preferred to have sex without a condom--her exact quote was, "It feels like having a sock in my vagina."

I should note that as a totally blind male (and this is true with other disabilities as well), I've found that most able-bodied women I've met were scared to engage sexually with me--to be involved sexually with someone who has an obvious physical disability scares them because they're scared that 1) if they do become pregnant, the disabled male will be unable to support them or their child; and/or 2) if they become pregnant, they fear that any child will have the same disability as the disabled parent (this is definitely not true in many cases).

I no longer date and I no longer attempt to participate in sexual relationships with others now for health (heart and stomach) reasons, but I well remember these issues when I was looking.

…because of course it isn’t just men who behave in off-putting ways. I’m not qualified to respond to your experience in a way that gives it justice. I’ll just say that it isn’t as if all unmarried people who are unwilling to wait until marriage are on a constant sexual rampage, nor is that the norm.

All other issues aside, I’m sorry to hear you were treated this way. I want to say there is someone for everyone, yet I know finding them isn’t always possible. I think there are less opportunities for relationships than people realise and it seems almost potluck (bad luck) what experience you have during the times when it is possible. That has been my experience.

Decent, kind, very intelligent, and not terribly attractive returned missionary man (John) getting older and wants to marry meets a devout, somewhat attractive TBM woman (Jane) at LDS Singles who is looking for a priesthood holder husband. They get engaged. She confides to a friend that she is worried about the sex part because she is not attracted to John and has no desire for sex anyway. Possibly a closet lesbian.

After they marry, she informs him she has acute endrometriosis, cannot bear children, sex is painful. They adopt. Child #1 (male) turns out to be schizophrenic. Child #2 (male) has severe developmental problems. Child #3 (Female) is irresponsible and extremely promiscuous. Bears a child with Fetal Alcohol syndrome, takes off and leaves John and Jane (getting older now) to raise the child which is exhausting.

In my opinion, without the Church, John would have been free to marry a non-LDS woman who would have loved him for his qualities. Jane might have not been shamed about chastity and might have developed a healthier sex drive. Or might have recognized her own sexuality.

Please don't misunderstand my point here, but those adoptive children might have gone to other younger or more energetic parents or it might have been the choice of the three different birth mothers to abort - or not - as in Pro-Choice.

The really interesting thing to me is how stories, narratives, specific conditions get trotted out. We humans love putting a face on things like this.

But the faces are many and diverse and the subject is the same which is birth control. It is the person's control regardless of laws and religions. I support the person. They are in control. If they need another to help them then they are dependents. I see legislating against this person's control as not the humanitarian act people think it is. It is taking their control and not as a good caregiver.

Arguing morals about this is attempting to square the circle. Humans do what humans do. Making things immoral where it comes to taking away a person's control is where I'm at. I'm not going to try and fight the natural in humans for something higher.

If I’ve interpreted this correctly, you mean that this comes down to a legal issue in that everything is pro-choice and private to the individual; therefore all these other points of discussion are about morality and they become moot points.

We could argue these points and put across personal experiences all day long if it is a moral debate on different points. But ultimately these are all just a private matter. They can be discussed but don’t form part of the actual debate at hand.

If that is what you mean, I agree.

I feel the need to fight back against these judgmental assertions. Perhaps it is pointless? If someone doesn’t think it’s a private matter, it raises so many issues that if defended, make things a point of public debate when really they are no one else’s business?

Privacy is something humans have really rarely had in our entire time. It is something to fight for but not in a way to circumvent a person's choices for themselves in all their possibilities and circumstances. We have so little time and opportunities to be true to the person we are most caught up with in life.

Let's hear it for Birth Control!

I look to the bonobo chimps as good examples for what a primate with a high sex drive can accomplish and not humans.

"In my opinion, without the Church, John would have been free to marry a non-LDS woman who would have loved him for his qualities. Jane might have not been shamed about chastity and might have developed a healthier sex drive. Or might have recognized her own sexuality."

COMMENT: Well, there are a lot of 'might haves' here, not to mention a very un-typical hypothetical. Notwithstanding, I think your point is well-taken. Mormonism is sexually repressive, which creates all sorts of havoc--even with biologically heterosexual couples. So, let's all agree, that Mormonism is NOT the ideal model for such relationships. (But didn't we already know this?)
_________________________________________________

"Please don't misunderstand my point here, but those adoptive children might have gone to other younger or more energetic parents or it might have been the choice of the three different birth mothers to abort - or not - as in Pro-Choice."

COMMENT: When you look at your hypothetical in the context of abortion--setting aside all other moral considerations--its force is not so clear. Your hypothetical suggests an unhealthy sex life between John and Jane, apparently not leading to pregnancy, given Jane's attitude about sex. In any event, there is nothing here that suggests either an unwanted pregnancy, and unwanted biological, or adopted child, or an abortion.

John and Jane's extremely unlucky adoption experience reflects only a series of challenges arising from previously undiagnosed biological circumstances, where if the risks had been known an abortion decision might have been considered morally acceptable. In any event, the natural mothers of these children rejected abortion, which has nothing to do with John and Jane. They either could handle it or not, and there is always the possibility that ANY adopted child 'might have' ended up with more competent adoptive parents. But what does that have to do with the choices of the biological mothers? It's hard to argue that adoptive children should in hindsight have been aborted due to their current health or mental problems; or because of the severe challenges that resulted to their adoptive parents.

Let me pause for a personal disclosure. I have two adopted sons, now grown, and have two grandchildren. The oldest was born two months premature and fought for his life on an incubator for several weeks. Fortunately, this produced no lasting adverse effects. In this case, the natural mother was a career model, and the pregnancy was a huge inconvenience. Her Mormon cultural background was influential in her decision to have the baby.

As to my second son, his natural mother struggled with alcohol during her pregnancy, but again, fortunately my son seems unaffected. In any event, although these cases are not as extreme as your hypothetical, there was arguably sufficient justification for the natural mothers to consider abortion. In my younger son's case, his natural mother wrote a heart-wrenching letter to us, his adoptive parents, explaining the severe pressure she was under to secure an abortion.

Now, as you might imagine, whenever the abortion question comes up, I naturally think of my children and grandchildren. It brings home the fact that a 'potential life' really is a potential life that should be taken very seriously. So, admittedly, I am just another know-nothing guy who has never faced the pressures and trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. But then, many pregnant teenagers and 20-somethings might benefit from my perspective.

Lastly, and back to your post, we never know the 'what ifs' and 'might have beens' of life. The abortion decision is not well served by inventing hypotheticals that only justify whatever stance one already has decided to take.

I think hypotheticals only come up when abortion is presented as an issue where other people have a say in what should be a private matter. Likewise, the many personal experiences people have that support a for-or-against argument. It is naturally going to be never-ending, just as many life experiences are. If you are pro-life, you opened the door on that one. The very fact that there ARE so many “what-ifs and maybes” is exactly why this is a personal, private matter.

Jacko Mo Mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had half a dozen sexual relationships prior to
> marrying my wife. I also had sex with my wife for
> awhile prior to marriage.
>
> My point is, looking back, our society and culture
> is way too casual about sex. Two persons can
> engage in intimate conversation about sex prior to
> marriage regarding expectations, etc., without
> having sex.
>
> The abortion problem is primarily a symptom of the
> pervasiveness of sex out of wedlock.

You have your views. So what.

...for taking the time to delve into my story and analyzing it with the filter of your own experiences.

You actually augment my point, that every real or hypothetical situation is extremely complicated and the best course, IMHO, is always free choice - hence, pro-choice, but especially without the heavy handed interference of a religion of dubious authority and authenticity.

AMEN :-)

"You actually augment my point, that every real or hypothetical situation is extremely complicated and the best course, IMHO, is always free choice - hence, pro-choice, but especially without the heavy handed interference of a religion of dubious authority and authenticity."

COMMENT: I agree with you and thank you for sharing your views as well. What bothers me is when the moral implications of the abortion decision--as revealed by our common intuitions about the value of human life, and potential human life--are dismissed or diminished by personal convenience, expediency, or just cultural acceptance of abortion over time. The huge numbers of abortions seem to suggest that this is exactly what is happening. This at least in part explains the outrage of the Prolife movement, and is counter-productive to securing into law the woman's right to choose.

I’m not entirely certain what you are saying here. To say that the huge number of abortions suggest they are due to convenience, expediency and acceptance is a leap in logic and is based on a lot of assumption plus a neglect of the nuances of life experiences. You don’t know that. It’s an assumption coloured by your own morality, one which you are imposing onto things you might not understand. You are explaining the sentiment of the pro-life movement, which I agree is an accurate definition. It seems you are justifying it due to these assumptions. In other words, “if only women had better morality, the law could protect their right to choose”. You might as well say “if only people behaved well, they could have their personal freedom”.

I’m not entirely certain what you are saying here. To say that the huge number of abortions suggest they are due to convenience, expediency and acceptance is a leap in logic and is based on a lot of assumption plus a neglect of the nuances of life experiences.

COMMENT: It is not a 'leap in logic.' However, it *is* an unsupported factual assumption. It is very difficult to empirically support such a claim, I admit. Moreover, what is a matter of 'convenience' for one person, is a personal moral necessary for another. That said, when you have 630,000 abortions a year, there is a lot of room for an expanded criteria of 'legitimacy,' while still being left with a huge number where moral justification seems highly questionable. But again, this is my own intuitive judgment that may or may not be shared. I would only ask that you be honest about your own intuitions in this regard.
_______________________________________________

In other words, “if only women had better morality, the law could protect their right to choose”. You might as well say “if only people behaved well, they could have their personal freedom”.

COMMENT: I would put it this way: If the abortion statistics showed that women were more sensitive to the potential life of the fetus, as acknowledge by Roe, perhaps society would be less active and passionate about interfering with their right to choose.

Your last sentence begs the question. The question is whether and to what extent a woman should have personal freedom over her body in the abortion context. This question begins with an assumption that such freedom is limited. Behavior is certainly relevant to resolving the question. Thus, if we were to ask whether and to what extent to regulate 'drunk driving,' it would be entirely relevant to consider how many drinkers actually drive drunk, and the consequences of such behavior. If the number was incidental, and the consequences minimal, society might find it unnecessarily intrusive to limit drinking and driving. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Frankly, I am shocked that this is even a matter of debate. You are right when you say that this question begins with the assumption that this right is limited. To me, that is the fundamental problem, and to say that behaviour is relevant to resolving this question, poses an equally serious issue. To you, the behaviour is the moral issue. To me, the fact that this is anyone else’s business is a moral issue.

Drink driving is not a good analogy. The consequences are dangerous to other people as well as the driver.

Third of Five Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> To me, the fact that this is anyone else’s
> business is a moral issue.

That is precisely the issue with CD's fulminations yesterday. There are a number of people on RfM, including prominently Henry, who think that what happens inside a woman's body is a proper topic for "dispassionate" men to adjudicate while passionately rejecting as hysteria any comparable discussion of state intrusion into men's bodies.

The lack of empathy, the lack of imagination, is a problem not just with the rabid pro-life crowd but also among many of them who consider themselves progressive allies of women. No one who thinks a woman's right to choose is the stuff of compromise is the problem, not the solution.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What bothers me is
> when the moral implications of the abortion
> decision--as revealed by our common intuitions
> about the value of human life, and potential human
> life--are dismissed or diminished by personal
> convenience, expediency, or just cultural
> acceptance of abortion over time. The huge numbers
> of abortions seem to suggest that this is exactly
> what is happening. This at least in part explains
> the outrage of the Prolife movement, and is
> counter-productive to securing into law the
> woman's right to choose.

I get what you're saying Henry Bemis. But. If the degree of outcry is the yardstick we use to determine law, we're in trouble. Because anybody who's anti anything can foment a great deal of outrage.

And if someone is actively pro-life they're likely going to come down on the side of few to zero terminations because in their eyes what would be an acceptable number? Zero.

Saying the numbers are counterproductive to securing the right to choose underscores the reality that pro-choice advocates are protesting, equally vehemently. Because the anti voices are surely saying that zero is the only number. So never the twain shall meet. There can never be agreement if one side decrees that the other side is totally wrong and should have no choice when the matter directly impacts themselves. The anti side is not just stating their views but rather insisting that they should be forced on those who hold different views.

The argument arises from the pro-life position that outsiders should make personal choices for others.

I get making one's views and principles known. I get advocating for all sides of an issue. I get making one's own choices based on personal principles. I don't get trying to force one's own beliefs and choices on everybody else.

"Pro-life" advocates aren't riled up only because of numbers. Because if the numbers decreased by 75% don't you think they'd still be out marching in an attempt to reach 0%? I do. Because it isn't only about numbers. It looks now as though it's about imposing restrictions on others according to our own views.

I know laws are decided by majority vote. Or that's the principle. But this type of law being sought is about people with one set of ideals trying to eradicate the free choice of others who don't share those beliefs.

That's what's objectionable.

Be free to make your own choices, iow, and allow others the same room.

By all means, advocate for your position. But don't seek to enforce it when the end result is infringing on another's freedom of choice wrt their own life and person.

I get what you're saying Henry Bemis. But. If the degree of outcry is the yardstick we use to determine law, we're in trouble. Because anybody who's anti anything can foment a great deal of outrage.

COMMENT: No, I didn't mean that, and agree with you. It is not the outrage that is relevant, but the statistical data that supports the outrage that is relevant. Because, in my view such data reflects disregard for the moral relevance of the abortion decision.
_______________________________________

And if someone is actively pro-life they're likely going to come down on the side of few to zero terminations because in their eyes what would be an acceptable number? Zero.

COMMENT: I am not uncritical of the Prolife movement, and its unrealistic, unfair, immoral, and frankly outrageous universal restriction on abortion, not to mention their own cavalier dismissal of a woman's rights. I do not agree that the decision should be left to the states, because of such nonsensical, religious influences and motivations.
_______________________________________

Saying the numbers are counterproductive to securing the right to choose underscores the reality that pro-choice advocates are protesting, equally vehemently. Because the anti voices are surely saying that zero is the only number. So never the twain shall meet. There can never be agreement if one side decrees that the other side is totally wrong and should have no choice when the matter directly impacts themselves. The anti side is not just stating their views but rather insisting that they should be forced on those who hold different views.

COMMENT: If the prochoice advocates want to retain their abortion rights in the current political climate, it would have been nice if the statistics showed that they were taking the moral implications of a living fetus seriously, and as such were being more careful about avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Frankly, I don't know if that would make a difference with the hard-core Prolifers, but it would, I suspect, make a difference with people who, like me, are outraged at the numbers, but unlike me are on the fence politically.
_____________________________________________

The argument arises from the pro-life position that outsiders should make personal choices for others.

COMMENT: No. That is not a fair assessment of the Prolife position. The Prolife position is that a fetus is a 'human life' to be protected to some extent over and above the right of a woman over her body. That is consistent with Roe, and it only means that personal privacy rights ("personal choices") are not unlimited in a democratic society.
_______________________________________________

"Pro-life" advocates aren't riled up only because of numbers. Because if the numbers decreased by 75% don't you think they'd still be out marching in an attempt to reach 0%? I do. Because it isn't only about numbers. It looks now as though it's about imposing restrictions on others according to our own views.

COMMENT: Yes, the hard-core Prolifers would not be satisfied. But, if the mainstream thought that the numbers were minimal, and reasonable, and really reflected exigent circumstances, it might affect what policy was finally adopted. But, I don't know.
_______________________________________________

I know laws are decided by majority vote. Or that's the principle. But this type of law being sought is about people with one set of ideals trying to eradicate the free choice of others who don't share those beliefs.

That's what's objectionable.

COMMENT: That is a false and rhetorical assessment, born of more passion than reason. If you have followed my posts on this topic you should see that it is far more complicated than that.
________________________________________________

Thank you for your comments.

> COMMENT: That is a false and rhetorical
> assessment, born of more passion than reason. I

Yep, I knew you would come back with that. Women's insistence on their own physical integrity is "false and rhetorical. . . born of more passion than reason." Your cup overflows with unintentionaly but real misogynistic patronization.


-----------------
> If you have followed my posts on this topic you
> should see that it is far more complicated than
> that.

It is complicated only insofar as you overlook your own insistence on bodily integrity when arguing that women's physical autonomy is a proper subject for negotiation.

You may now repeat your argument yet again, explaining how everyone has failed to recognize its wisdom.