Is she right?
>We do not allow oral contraceptives, which have always been prohibited by the Church, because they are a kind of abortion. We do allow the use of condoms in marriage, because we consider them just an advanced form of coitus interruptus. Did some Church Fathers dislike coitus interruptus? No, only Saint Augustine opposed it (all of the other quotes by them supposed opposing it are talking about oral contraceptives, or are by people not considered Church Fathers by the Orthodox Church--to be a Church father, you must be both a saint and not have taught heresy, so Roman Catholic Church Fathers are not necessarily the same as ours), but let's contrast his view with what Saint John Chrysostom says in On Marriage and Family Life: "If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want." But how can we affirmatively settle the matter as to whether the Church treated it as a sin? Very simple, we look at the penance manuals for confession for the first thousand years. Only one of them, Poenitentiale Hubertense, lists coitus interruptus as a sin, and we know that is due to a misunderstanding of biology--how do we know? Because it gives the penance time as *ten years*, which is what every manual gives for abortion; compare that to the ten to twenty days typically given for masturbation, or the three years generally prescribed for sodomy. Could married couples just not have sex if having more kids would put their family at risk of poverty? Yes, but it’s important for married couples to maintain a sex life as long as either of them has urges, as per 1 Corinthians 7:5.
>>724589
>Pic is talking about Catholics
>Post is talking about Orthodox
What?
Also Catholics who use ANY BC are in the wrong as they by fucntion remove the natural outcome of sex from the equation and make it more about the pleasure of the couple than about the uniting act of bringing forth life through the love of Husband and Wife as Christ loves His Bride, The Church.
>>724610
But Paul says marriage is a concession to lust, not procreation.
>>724589
Who gives a shit what cultists think.
>>724674
This isn't about Protestants
>>724844
They are all in the same boat.
>>724855
>a religion that has a continuous existence back thousands of years and was the state religion of the Roman Empire is the "same boat" as televangelism and Mormonism
>>724870
Yes.
If you make it up 2000 years ago or made it up yesterday, it's still the same nonsense.
>>724922
>>724610
The less asked question is about natural infertility. Is it wrong for an infertile person to marry and have sex? Nothing can come of the union, therefore it serves no purpose in the eyes of the church.
>>724589
All that means is 98% of Catholics are going to Hell for thinking themselves higher than the Church they claim to be faithful too.
They should all fuck off to Protestantism who decided to follow the world when the Pill was made so they didn't lose their weak sheep.
Daily reminder that the best thing the USSR ever did was kill most of the clergy in Eastern Europe.
>>724589
Oral contraceptives like the pill are under my control. They're made for me. I can use them at will and none can stop me without recurring to violence against me.
I don't have the same kind of control over condoms or coitus interruptus, I have to rely on the man with those. Even if my put the condom myself every time (which I am not willing to do) it is still more faulty than the pill and it can break or worse he can take it off since it's on his body.
So no, fuck that bullshit I want full, total and complete control over not getting pregnant when I don't want to so I will keep using oral contraceptives all right. Anyone who tries to take this basic right to from me will die.
>>724870
>state religion of the Roman Empire
Yeah when it went to utter shit. I'll take the pagan gods and goddesses instead which were the state religion of the Roman Empire at the height of its splendor.
>>724589
>Could married couples just not have sex if having more kids would put their family at risk of poverty? Yes, but it’s important for married couples to maintain a sex life as long as either of them has urges
That makes no sense. If you have sex, you put yourself at risk of pregnancy. Either the man accepts never to have sex outside of that one time to have the kid or the woman gets her own method to ensure no pregnancy happens, which is the oral contraceptives, since condoms and coitus interruptus are in the hands of the man and are therefore out of her control and not reliable.
>>725443
They can invoke divine punishments from beyond time and space.
>>725493
Sounds like Cthulhu cultists. It makes sense that evil people wouldn't care for the well-being of others.
>>725443
Oral contraceptives endanger post-conception life, is the issue with them.
>>725505
Do you think abortion should be legal?
>>725518
>Oral contraceptives endanger post-conception life
How does the pill, which prevents the egg from forming to begin with, endanger post-conception life that never happened as there was no egg to be fertilized in the first place?
Nevermind that post-conception life is not even an issue until it's still a parasitic potato with no brain, and it doesn't take priority over me, but that's another matter.
>>725532
Pills work by two way, by preventing fertilization or by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg
>>725520
Within the first three months period when it's still an unformed unaware potato glob without brain, yes, as it's already legal. Also in the cases of rape or if it's a danger to the mother's life and well-being.
>>725532
>How does the pill, which prevents the egg from forming to begin with
It's not 100% effective in this, and it can kill in the even of failing here
>>725541
Your point being?
>>725544
Then maybe you should reexamine yourself before attacking the religious for not carting about the wellbeing of others
>>725546
>>725541
You really think women care about fertilized eggs? They're the same as any other egg flushed down with menstruation the moment they don't attach themselves to the uterus. Which is what should happen since I don't want to be pregnant, and naturally take measures to prevent this. I don't feel anything about my eggs and it's really paranoid of you to.
>>724589
Yeah, I just don't buy any of the arguments that Catholics constantly repeat about birth control. I can understand being against forms that could potentially result in a fertilized egg being killed, but something like a condom I just don't get.
It seems to me more like a case of the Catholic Church having dug itself into a hole that it can't possibly get out of without looking hypocritical, so it's just constant "something something natural law something something unitive and procreative aspects of sex" though I imagine the real reason is "because Pope Paul VI said so" which brings us back to the whole idea of papal infallibility (though I'm not sure if the Catholic position on contraception is considered infallible).
>>725584
Why shouldn't I feel concerned about human life being disposable? You say it's not a slippery slope, but it very much is, since abortion has been pushed to allow even fetuses who can recognize voices ad smile. Thinkers like Peter Singer think infanticide should be legal, and I'll tell you right now, that is not considered very offensive, it's not harming his academic career, whereas saying something like gay sex is immoral would be considered extremely offensive in academics.
>>725572
Why? It's obvious they don't care about mine.
That child would have been a burden and a pain and a danger and a source of anguish and stress to its mother, even during pregnancy. Do you not consider this being attempting to force women to children they don't want?
>>725603
>Why shouldn't I feel concerned about human life being disposable?
Because you have no problems considering the human life of women disposable, yourself.
>>725599
>can understand being against forms that could potentially result in a fertilized egg being killed
So you want to give all the power and control over not getting pregnant to the man?
I will not accept this.
>>725631
Female condoms exist as well famalam, but yeah we should try to avoid killing humans when possible.
>>725640
>Female condoms
Cause tearing and irritation to delicate internal parts and also tend to slip out of place and become dangerous.
>we should try to avoid killing humans
Eggs aren't humans.
Also the pill used correctly prevents the egg from forming in the first place, a point you all are conventiently ignoring.
>>725649
>Once you get pregnant with a child, then yes, you have a responsibility, a duty
No I don't. I accept no responsibility nor duty to someone I never wanted in the first place. You have no right to impose it on me and you are my enemy if you attempt to and the child you would attempt to impose on me is my enemy too for ruining my life with its existence.
>I don't say it's okay to crush a woman's brain because I find her inconvenient
But you're saying it's okay to ruin her life which could be seen as even worse.
>>725660
>Also the pill used correctly prevents the egg from forming in the first place,
Is it 100% effective? The concern that it can function as an abortifacient, especially in ancient times, is the reason there was a rule laid down against oral contraceptives.
>>725605
>Women should be able to kill babies if they are slightly inconvenienced
Honestly you were pretty convincing up until this point.
>>725660
>eggs aren't humans
Fertilized eggs certainly are, unless you want to argue that humans don't produce humans.
I'm not completely against the pill.
>>725673
>I accept no responsibility nor duty to someone I never wanted in the first place
It is nonetheless your duty. Duties are not always optional, that is a fundamental requisite of civilization. "Excuse me Mr. Millionaire, do you feel like skipping your taxes this year?" No, you engender human life, you have a responsibility toward it, even if it was not intentionally. Just like if you run someone over unintentionally, you have a duty to pull over and stop and help in any way you can until someone else can fully take over.
>But you're saying it's okay to ruin her life which could be seen as even worse.
Giving birth to a child does not ruin one's life, that is a cold, disgusting and hedonist way of thinking. You don't even have to care for the child, you can give her up for adoption (and adoption for newborns is not an issue, adoption is mainly tricky for kids who are taken by child protective services), if you honestly do not have the means to raise her.
>>725675
>Is it 100% effective
Nothing is except sterilization, not even the condom and especially not coitus interruptus.
>The concern that it can function as an abortifacient
There are cases where concerns over remote, abstract possibilities do nothing but hurt concrete, contemporary reality. This is one of them. Are you going to ban cutlery too because someone coud kill someone else with a fork?
Your concerns do nothing but hurt women.
>>724961
haha you sure showed him with your epic hat reaction image
>>725678
>babies
>slightly inconvenienced
Retard confirmed. Babies are one of the most tolling burdens even when they're wanted, when they're not wanted they're hell.
>>725679
>Fertilized eggs certainly are
When they can live outside me on their own, I'll start considering them humans. Until then, they're the same as any other egg to be flushed down with menstruation.
>>725687
>It is nonetheless your duty.
It is not.
>"Excuse me Mr. Millionaire, do you feel like skipping your taxes this year?"
Mr. Millionaire has moved abroad to a fiscal paradise where he doesn't have to pay taxes.
>No, you engender human life, you have a responsibility toward it, even if it was not intentionally
Indeed, with an unwanted pregnancy I am endagering my life so I have a responsibility toward myself to pull myself out of that danger.
>Just like if you run someone over unintentionally, you have a duty to pull over and stop and help in any way you can until someone else can fully take over
Which doesn't happen to take nine months of your life, full of pain and fatigue and medical expenses on your part, not to mention the likelihood of endangering your way of living. Make pregnancy as short and easy as waiting a few minutes for 911 to arrive, and your example will hold water. Otherwise your comparison makes no sense.
>>725691
Are you sure they are remote and abstract? Are you saying when a pill fails in stopping egg growth, it is harmless in regard to the post-conception life?
>>725716
>Mr. Millionaire has moved abroad to a fiscal paradise where he doesn't have to pay taxes.
No, most don't. Neither is that an argument unless you're saying it's acceptable behavior.
>I am endagering my life
Maybe you'd have an argument a hundred years ago.
>Which doesn't happen to take nine months of your life, full of pain and fatigue and medical expenses on your part, not to mention the likelihood of endangering your way of living.
But if it did, that would not abrogate your duty.
tbqh I think most of the opposition to abortion comes from the sheer narcissism of some of the advocates of it.
Okay, the Pope made a judgment call about an emotional topic he knew little about and the church got backed into the corner due to Papal Infallibility, that's fine, most people don't give a shit about what the Church says. Most people also don't actually disagree with many of the common pro's of it.
>Kid won't have a good environment to grow up in.
>Eugenics is an objectively morally correct practice
>Danger to the mother or the result of rape
>Kids are expensive, the time to have a kid isn't right
>It limits the amount of niggers
And so on and so forth. No one wants to see babies die, but most people are willing to just slide the "babies dying" thought into the back of their head because ultimately, very few people want the ability to say "I WANT THE RIGHT TO PERFORM POST BIRTH ABORTIONS REEEEEEE".
But then you end up with people like the poster in this thread whose entire argument is "it is an inconvenience to me and I do not want to have my fun time taken away by being an adult or facing reality". And I can see how that rubs people the wrong way as you've done the exact opposite of "come up with even a flimsy reason to make people not think of murdering babies".
>>725719
>Are you sure they are remote and abstract?
If the pill is used correctly, yes, since correct use prevents the egg from forming.
>Are you saying when a pill fails in stopping egg growth, it is harmless in regard to the post-conception life?
I am saying I don't care about eggs and that it is far more harmful to force an unwanted pregnancy that disrupts the mother's life than it is to worry about an egg that could never be anything more than an egg and whose only effect is some pads in the trash while an unwanted child's effect is the likely destruction of the life of its mother and of the child's itself, growing up unloved and uncared for.
>>725443
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N
>>725744
>If the pill is used correctly, yes, since correct use prevents the egg from forming.
Does effectiveness rating including just the egg's formation, or does it also include post conception termination?
>>725716
>When they can live outside me on their own, I'll start considering them humans
Sounds pretty arbitrary lad
>Until then, they're the same as any other egg to be flushed down with menstruation.
Not correct. An egg on its own is not a human since it will simply remain an egg, once fertilized however it is a developing human.
>>725729
>No, most don't. Neither is that an argument unless you're saying it's acceptable behavior
Sure it is. Mr. Millionaire has every right to look out for himself and think about his well-being, and if he finds your demands unacceptable, it's his right to seek out better shores. He is not your slave, you have no right to expect him to suffer for you. Same goes for women.
>Maybe you'd have an argument a hundred years ago.
There is still an argument today, since unwanted pregnancies still destroy one's quality of life (presuming they are so fortunate not to have their physical life destroyed in the first place). Women are not your slaves.
>But if it did, that would not abrogate your duty.
I have no duty though. I do not accept this kind of duty imposed from you and people like you.
>>725768
>Sounds pretty arbitrary lad
No more arbitrary than calling babies a "duty" or a "slight inconvenience."
>An egg on its own is not a human since it will simply remain an egg
An egg that does not attach to the uterus will remain an egg too. As I've said, when they can live outside me on their own, I'll start considering them humans. Until then, they're the same as any other egg.
>once fertilized however it is a developing human.
If that were so you could put it into an incubator and let it develop on its own. You can't? It's not a human then.
>>725767
>Does effectiveness rating including just the egg's formation
Since that's the primary purpose of the pill yes, preventing the egg's formation is its measure of efficiency, anything else is a secondary effect that might happen in remote, unlikely cases. Which is why the pill is better than the condom for preventing pregnancy.
>>725774
You can't reject the duty that is biology m9.
>>725732
>"it is an inconvenience to me and I do not want to have my fun time taken away by being an adult or facing reality"
The fact that you consider pregnancy a mere "inconvenience" shows how wrong you are.
>being an adult
>facing reality
It is more adult and reality-facing to get an early abortion/take all good possible measures to prevent pregnancy and live a fulfilled life than it is to want to force others to suffer. The mother with a traumatizing and disrupting experience she does not want, the child with a traumatized and bad life he could do without.
>>725774
Could you explain to me your theory of rights.
Trying to equate any and all duty to slavery is weak. You might as well start trotting out the Hitler card.
You have a duty because you engendered the life, regardless of whether or not it was intentional. You can reject this duty, but that doesn't mean you don't have it, it means you are shirking your duty.
>>725800
Yes I can. You do too, or you'd go back to killing those who enter your territory as biology compels.
>>725791
I'm not the guy talking about duties, just about not actively killing humans.
A fertilized egg is developing from conception onward.
>If that were so you could put it into an incubator and let it develop on its own. You can't?
Completely arbitrary
>>725822
If someone breaks into my house without my permission, what is wrong with killing them?
>>725817
>You have a duty because you engendered the life
Why?
I did not want that life. Its existence is a mistake and as a mistake it must be corrected by removing it. Removing it while it still is unable to anything (such as during its embryo state) is best since it is what causes the least pain to and effect on others' lives, especially the mother's, and to its own life as well, since it is still as alive and feeling as a vegetable, ie it's not even aware of itself and cannot know it was ever alive to begin with. That's presuming it got as far as becoming an embryo and did not get flushed out with menstruation as all eggs do.
>Trying to equate any and all duty to slavery is weak
Any duty that is forced against wo is a form of slavery. That's why, to keep with your taxes examples, someone who does not want to pay unfair taxes can move abroad and not pay taxes to his former country anymore.
>You can reject this duty, but that doesn't mean you don't have it, it means you are shirking your duty
Slave owners always try to justify slavery with that reasoning. It does not work. I have no duty to shirk, but I do have myself to protect.
>>725826
>A fertilized egg is developing from conception onward
Then put it into an incubator and let it develop on its own from its egg state to its baby state. I am not willing to act as an incubator to it and you cannot violate my autonomy and my authority over myself by attempting to force me to be. As for me, it cannot grow into anything since I have prevented it from happening, so it is nothing but another egg.
>Completely arbitrary
As I've said, no more arbitrary than calling babies a "duty" or a "slight inconvenience."
>I'm not the guy talking about duties, just about not actively killing humans.
But you're okay with ruining their lives?
>>725840
Considering humans can make their intentions known, if you just shoot someone who walked in without posing a threat for whatever non-hostile reason the law says you are in the wrong.
Unwanted children can be seen as an hostile threat btw to the mother given the massive burden they place on the mother's life.
>>725903
>you cannot violate my autonomy and my authority over myself by attempting to force me to be.
you can if what youre doing is wrong, I may own my garage yet I cant load it with drugs and nukes because it's wrong.
>>725926
>you can if what youre doing is wrong
What is wrong is to force a woman to unwanted pregnancy since it is a violation of her autonomy, of the autonomy she has over her own body which is hers and hers alone, and of her basic human rights. You have no right to violate someone's basic rights in the name of potential, abstract life. Freedom from slavery is a basic human right and forced pregnancy is indeed a form of slavery, since it forces a woman to a labor she wants no part with.
>>725903
>if you just shoot someone who walked in without posing a threat for whatever non-hostile reason the law says you are in the wrong.
Isn't their breaking in sufficient for me to presume a threat?
>>725954
Also, regarding human rights:
>Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence
>Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal and safe abortion; the right to birth control; freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception; the right to access good-quality reproductive healthcare; and the right to education and access in order to make free and informed reproductive choices. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about sexually transmitted infections and other aspects of sexuality, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).
>>725879
>I did not want that life
You did not necessarily want to run someone over with your car either. You seem to think something be accidental negates your responsibility.
>Any duty that is forced against wo is a form of slavery.
No, I do not think so. Slavery means you are chattel which can be bought and sold and has no rights. Whereas duties are part of being in society from childhood (you have a duty to attend school, for example).
>>725971
Please actually present your theory of rights.
>>725961
>Isn't their breaking in sufficient for me to presume a threat?
No, since they could just be your old friend who didn't bother alerting you since you should recognize it's him anyway.
>>725992
Then the fault is his. I have zero reason to expect a friend to break into my house.
>>725981
Any theory of rights is codified into a childhood indoctrination of assumed entitlements. In the case of Catholics and the extreme, it is obedience to the most notorious despot humanity has ever spawned, but this is obliquely implied and applied throughout the indoctrination it is easy to overlook. Something funny happens in any population that reaches the 50% critical mass of Catholics...lights out!
>>725954
>What is wrong is to force a woman to unwanted pregnancy
in that youre killing someone else for your comfort
>You have no right to violate someone's basic rights
you can if what theyre doing is wrong. We have right to privacy as long as were not doing seriously wrong things.
>potential, abstract life
a fetus isnt potential life, it's life, period, and "abstract life" doesnt make any sense. How is life "abstract"?
>le slavery
it's not slavery, it's moral responsability
>>725974
>You did not necessarily want to run someone over with your car either
As I have already explained that example doesn't hold water, since even if you run someone over with a car you are not expected to care for them until they have recovered, all that's expected of you is call emergency and let them handle it. Not comparable to the burden that is a pregnancy.
>No, I do not think so. Slavery means you are chattel which can be bought and sold and has no rights
Wrong. Forced labor is classified as slavery too.
>Whereas duties are part of being in society from childhood (you have a duty to attend school, for example)
Attending school is considered a civic duty as it allows the pupil to learn and grow into a well-rounded adult, proved they are allowed to follow their personal calling and are not forced into an education that goes completely against their wishes (eg if your kid wants to be a musician, you don't have the right to force them to become a carpenter instead)
This cannot be made a case with unwanted pregnancy, since the mother cannot pick and choose the kid like a pupil does with schools to her liking and has no reward from an unwanted, exhausting, traumatizing burden that is forced on her with a violation of her basic rights.
PS Schools that violate pupil's human rights are wrong too.
>>725981
These >>725971 are recognized human rights. Please educate yourself.
>>726028
>in that youre killing someone else for your comfort
It is my right to protect myself and my quality of life. You have no idea of the burden children are.
>you can if what theyre doing is wrong
It is wrong of you to want to force someone into slavery.
>a fetus isnt potential life
Then put it into an incubator. You cannot violate my body for it.
>it's not slavery, it's moral responsability
It is forced labor ie slavery.
>>726046
IMO if a woman is forced against her will to have a child that child should be an indentured servant to her as it owes her unpaid labor.
>>726046
>It is my right to protect myself and my quality of life.
not at the expense of another human life
>It is wrong of you to want to force someone into slavery.
it's not slavery it's moral responsibility.
>Then put it into an incubator.
No, you have to take care of it, it is your child after all
>It is forced labor ie slavery.
that's a pretty broad definition of slavery, under it all jobs fall in it. Moreover not all kinds of slavery are intrinsically unjust, the unjust ones are the ones that take human people to be property.
>>726007
>I have zero reason to expect a friend to break into my house.
Some people do. What can I say.
>>726027
>you are not expected to care for them until they have recovered,
You are expected to care for them until someone better qualified can take over that duty, yes. If that's in the middle of nowhere and it takes days or even weeks, it is your duty to remain with them and care for them the whole time.
>Attending school is considered a civic duty
But it's forced labor, isn't it?
>the mother cannot pick and choose the kid like a pupil does with schools to her liking
kek, that's not how public school works, you have a very limited choice
>and has no reward from an unwanted, exhausting, traumatizing burden that is forced on her with a violation of her basic rights.
Plenty of people garner nothing rewarding from school, and the ordeal is much, much longer than pregnancy, and is a much, much more active duty.
>These are recognized human rights
So your theory of human rights literally comes down to nothing but CURRENT YEAR?
>>726046
>in that youre killing someone else for your comfort
>It is my right to protect myself and my quality of life. You have no idea of the burden children are.
So you support infanticide?
>>726070
>not at the expense of another human life
Why?
If the other human life puts my own life at expense, at serious threat of death or harm, or endangers the quality of my own life, then it is my right to defend myself even at the expense of another human life. That's why europeans don't want refugees.
>it's not slavery it's moral responsibility
It is slavery. I don't have any moral responsibility to destroy my own life for someone else.
>No, you have to take care of it, it is your child after all
No I don't it, and no it is not my child. I do not want it and I do not recognize it. It is a burden and an hostile threat to me and as such it is to be treated.
>that's a pretty broad definition of slavery, under it all jobs fall in it
Not really since you get to know the terms and conditions of a job before you accept it and even if you accept it, you can always quit if said terms and conditions become unacceptable for you. Not so with pregnancy.
>Moreover not all kinds of slavery are intrinsically unjust, the unjust ones are the ones that take human people to be property
Forced pregnancy falls into this since you take women to be property to dispose of and not people with a will and autonomy of their own.
>>726033
>if you run someone over with a car you are not expected to care for them until they have recovered, all that's expected of you is call emergency and let them handle it. Not comparable to the burden that is a pregnancy.
You are morally expected to care for them. Luckily for you there exists a system by which you can outsource the care for your convenience.
If you have no access to emergency services and place their life in jeopardy entirely through your fault, then do you think it is right to not do anything about it?
>>726087
>endangers the quality of my own life, then it is my right to defend myself even at the expense of another human life.
Man this jew landlord demanding rent is endangering my quality of life, time to load up my Glock
>>726087
>If the other human life puts my own life at expense
it doesnt
>That's why europeans don't want refugees.
no it has more to do with cultural issues
>I don't have any moral responsibility to destroy my own life for someone else.
you do if you brought that life in the first place, that's pretty much what motherhood is about. Also quit the loaded terms
>No I don't it, and no it is not my child.
it is
>I do not recognize it.
that's a problem with your own intellectual faculties, not with reality. In real life it is your child
>Not really since you get to know the terms and conditions of a job before you accept it
and you know through biology that sexual activity is an act that leads to conception
>you can always quit if said terms and conditions become unacceptable for you. Not so with pregnancy.
that's because of the nature of the question at hand. If a doctor quit his job in the middle of surgery he would be held responsible to finish the procedure
> falls into this since you take women to be property to dispose
no, you take them to be competent human beings who have moral obligations to fulfill. Your view holds women to be kids that dont have any kind of responsibility whatsoever
>>725903
well shit you should have fucking thought of that before you went and got consensually knocked up then you dumb fuck
>>726077
>You are expected to care for them until someone better qualified can take over that duty
Not really. All you have to do is alert emergiences. If it takes too long you can ask someone else or go look for someone yourself since it's your right to return to your life as soon as possible AND it's your duty to get the dying one to better care as swiftly as possible, so if it takes days or weeks you don't remain with them you go look for rescue. Which still has nothing to do with unwanted pregnancies which are the forced presence of an hostile threat to you.
>But it's forced labor, isn't it?
One could argue the objective rewards it gets and the fact you can choose your education do not make it forced labor. Not the case with unwanted babies, since they are exclusively and objectively only a burden.
>kek, that's not how public school works, you have a very limited choice
I'm sorry your school system sucks. You should move to a non-third world country.
>Plenty of people garner nothing rewarding from school, and the ordeal is much, much longer than pregnancy, and is a much, much more active duty.
Disputable. Pregnancy is a full-time labor 24/7 for 9 months, school leaves you plenty hours and time for yourself each day as well as plenty day offs. Pregnancy is more active than school since it involves the whole body 24/7, which again does not happen with school.
>So your theory of human rights literally comes down to nothing but CURRENT YEAR?
I agree with the rights I presented to you, since they are sensible human rights. Do you want to deny them to someone?
>>725954
where does the notion that disallowing abortions forces women to have babies come from? I dont know if you know this but babies come from when a mommy and a daddy have sex, so unless you get raped you were 50% of what made you pregnant. The availability of abortions has nothing to do with that.
dont get pregnant if you dont want to have kids
pretty fucking basic shit
>>726124
> it's your right to return to your life as soon as possible
No it isn't. If it were, then you could just leave without even stopping. You have no right to return to your life until their care is assured. You have zero right to leave them unless it would increase their chance of survival.
>One could argue the objective rewards it gets and the fact you can choose your education do not make it forced labor. Not the case with unwanted babies, since they are exclusively and objectively only a burden.
I would argue that human life is intrinsically more valuable than a degree. Would you concur?
>Disputable.
No, you have to sight in a series of chairs and focus on schools, and then focus when you get out on homework. Pregnancy gives you much more mobility and freedom to pursue your own desires.
>I agree with the rights I presented to you, since they are sensible human rights. Do you want to deny them to someone?
I certainly don't think abortion ought to be a human right. A man used to have full right to rape his wife and kill unwanted children, that doesn't make it okay, but these rights were considered quite "sensible". You actually have to provide a theory of human rights, because just saying something is "sensible" is nothing more than saying "contemporary sentiment".
>>726122
>well shit you should have fucking thought of that before you went and got consensually knocked up then you dumb fuck
Who got consensually knocked up? Not me. It is you who want to knock me up without my consent by preventing me to access my best means of birth control which is the pill.
>>726103
Please see >>726124.
>Man this jew landlord demanding rent is endangering my quality of life, time to load up my Glock
Calm down Hitler, you can always move out and take rent to a non-jew landlord. Not so with a baby that's stuck in you. Until we have artificial wombs, early abortion and contraceptives are the next best thing.
>>726168
if you are, right now, unable to take birth control, and you have sex with someone (who isn't me) and get pregnant, whose fault is that?
Keep in mind that you aren't being made to have sex.
I dont know how to make this any clearer for you.
>>726149
>No it isn't. If it were, then you could just leave without even stopping
That's why there's 911. You call them, you go look for them if they take too long, and then you move on with your life. Still has nothing to do with unwanted pregnancies which are the forced presence of an hostile threat to you.
>I would argue that human life is intrinsically more valuable than a degree. Would you concur?
Are you saying a primitive tribe nigger is more valuable than useful education that allows people to better their own lives?
>No, you have to sight in a series of chairs and focus on schools, and then focus when you get out on homework. Pregnancy gives you much more mobility and freedom to pursue your own desires.
False, since if your desire is not to have children pregnancy prevents mobility and freedom to pursue that desire, also it is a 24/7 activity unlike school and homework. You cannot put away a pregnancy and go do whatever like you do with textbooks.
>I certainly don't think abortion ought to be a human right.
So you would force a woman to in fact slavery against her will, violating her autonomy and body autonomy, causing her pain and trauma and likely disrupting her life, and likely dooming the life of the kid itself since it won't be taken care of by a mother that hates him?
>because just saying something is "sensible" is nothing more than saying "contemporary sentiment".
No, it is saying they are sensible to me. Far more so than forcing people to horrible burdens they don't want such as unwanted pregnancies.
>>726117
>it doesnt
Who are you to decide that for me? It does.
>no it has more to do with cultural issues
Cultural issues of not wanting to see your life go down the shitter.
>you do if you brought that life in the first place, that's pretty much what motherhood is about. Also quit the loaded terms
I do not want to bring any life at all right now and you and it deserve all my hatred and vengeance if you force me to, since you are in fact destroying my life.
>it is
It is not. I reject it.
>that's a problem with your own intellectual faculties, not with reality. In real life it is your child
It is not. As I've said, I reject it.
>and you know through biology that sexual activity is an act that leads to conception
I dunno man blowjobs are sexual activity but I've never heard of someone getting pregnant by drinking sperm. Sexual activity isn't necessarily for conception, it is if you want it to be, but it's not if you don't. That's why we have contraception which you seem to want to take away.
>that's because of the nature of the question at hand. If a doctor quit his job in the middle of surgery he would be held responsible to finish the procedure
The doctor has accepted the procedure, a forced pregnancy is not accepted it is forced.
>no, you take them to be competent human beings who have moral obligations to fulfill.
There's no moral obligations to have children.
>Your view holds women to be kids that dont have any kind of responsibility whatsoever
That's fallacious. Just because someone shouldn't be forced to have kids they don't want to doesn't mean they are free to do as they please, that's why we have regulations.
>>726138
How do I not get pregnant if you deprive of my pills doc?
Condoms and other methods that rely on the male? That places me in danger of the male not doing his job or not wanting to do his job for whatever reason. You deprive me of my control of it.
Not have sex? That puts my marriage in danger
since my husband wants sex and you expect me to give it to him anyway.
Why do you want people to do something only to deprive them of the means to do that something?
>>726180
>if you are, right now, unable to take birth control, and you have sex with someone (who isn't me) and get pregnant, whose fault is that?
>the whole thread is about making women unable to take the best means of birth control available that's completely under their control (the pill), while still expecting them to have sex with their husbands because lol christians
>2016
>still being a part of the biggest boy-rape ring in history
I don't know how people can stay with the church when the pederasty cases just keep coming. Especially since the Church still keeps getting caught protecting the rapists.
>>726228
>>726236
t b h I personally think birth control is fine, i just think the logic you use to arrive at that conclusion is retarded
>i fucked up and now there are consequences
>this is someone else's fault! I shouldnt have to deal with the consequences of my actions!
I dont know if you have me confused with another poster in this thread or something
>>726221
>You call them, you go look for them if they take too long, and then you move on with your life
>>726248
What consequences are there if oral contraceptives prevents said consequences from happening? Are you confusing contraceptives with foetal abortion?
>>726253
If you just stand around fiddling your fingers while no help comes for an extended period of time you're doing more harm than good to you and to the person you're supposed to rescue. You're supposed to go look for help.
>>726262
I'm saying that personally i think oral contraceptives are fine because i dont think there is anything wrong with having sex and not wanting a child. But if contraceptives fail, I think the blame/responsibility/burden must lie with the people who created the child. So i think abortion is wrong.
>>725678
Exposure of unwanted infants has been pretty common for most of human history. Just saying.
>>726274
So I guess if the mother doesn't want it and is a danger and a threat to the well-being of the baby you'll agree to give it up for adoption or leave its care to someone else. Also you'll agree an egg is indistinguishable from another if it is not allowed to implement and stays an egg and is flushed down with menstruation as eggs are.
>>726268
Looking for more help is one thing, if feasible. Just "getting on with your life" is another.
>>726293
yes, i suppose so. If what youre getting at is morning-after pills, I think they are acceptable. My main complaint was with the line of argument that contraceptives/abortions are morally acceptable because having a child can be an inconvenience.
>>726303
>you go look for them if they take too long
Do you have reading problems?
>>726305
Contraceptives/abortions are morally acceptable because having a child is much more than an inconvencience, it can literally ruin your life. Read up on the lives of single mothers.
>>726307
No, I don't. You typed "move on with your life".
>>726313
Then give the child up for adoption. Again, adoption for babies is no a problem, adoption is only an issue for more grown children, especially in boys homes and so on
>>726313
>ruin your life
you keep saying this without really explaining.
and its kind of beside the point. Even if having a child is a tremendous burden, it's the result of your conscious informed actions and as such its your responsibility.
>>726319
Oh my god you are literally retarded.
>You call them, you go look for them if they take too long, and then you move on with your life
>You call them
THAT MEANS YOU CALL 911. YOU PICK UP PHONE, DIGIT 9-1-1, AND SAY WHAT THE EMERGENCY IS TO THE NICE LADY THAT ANSWERS.
>you go look for them if they take too long
THAT MEANS IF YOU CAN'T TALK TO THE NICE 911 LADY ON YOUR PHONE BECAUSE YOUR PHONE DOESN'T WORK OR WHATEVER OR THEY'RE TAKING TOO MUCH TIME YOU START RUNNING WHILE SHOUTING "HELP! HELP! PLEASE HELP ME!" SO AS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION
>and then you move on with your life
THAT MEANS ONCE YOU AND WHOEVER WAS UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE WITH A RETARD LIKE YOU ARE RESCUED YOU CAN GET OUT OF PANIC STATE AND RETURN TO NORMAL STATE OF MIND AND BUSINESS
IS IT SIMPLE ENOUGH NOW FOR AN AUTIST LIKE YOU!
>>726343
>THAT MEANS ONCE YOU AND WHOEVER WAS UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE WITH A RETARD LIKE YOU ARE RESCUED YOU CAN GET OUT OF PANIC STATE AND RETURN TO NORMAL STATE OF MIND AND BUSINESS
Right, and not before, even if it takes weeks.
>>726328
>Then give the child up for adoption
And be forced to the pain, fatigue, danger, and labor of an unwanted pregnancy? No thanks. If my boss threatens to fire me because of my pregnancy it is my right to have an abortion since you cannot force me to lose my job for a kid I don't want.
>>726347
>Right, and not before, even if it takes weeks
Except if it takes more than a few hours you just go look for help so it doesn't take weeks. Heck you shouldn't wait more than a few minutes if you see it's something life-threatening, you should rush for help right away. Once there's a doctor to take it from there, you can go.
>>726361
This, who the fuck waits for help putting someone at risk? The red cross itself said if help doesn't come quickly you run to find someone yourself.
If you get raped and impregnated, did god will it?
>>726333
>you keep saying this without really explaining
Raising a child is a 24/7/365 stressful, tiring, unpaid work. Requires an immense amount of time, expenses and resources to do well, often at the expense of one's own life, since children cost a lot in both terms of money and in terms of one's own time. That is unacceptable to be forced on anyone.
>Even if having a child is a tremendous burden, it's the result of your conscious informed actions and as such its your responsibility
But you want to take my means of prevention away from me? It is not my conscious informed action not to have oral contraceptives that prevent pregnancy readily and easily available to me, it is an imposition from you.
>>726361
But you aren't leaving them to move on with your life, you're actively looking for help. And you're not done until you ensure their care has been transferred to paramedics. This duty is not impacted by length of time, if you hit them in the middle of the mountains and your car is rekt, it doesn't matter if it takes you days to get paramedics, you aren't released from your duty until you do.
>>726383
>forced
do you know what 'rorced' means?
>But you want to take my means of prevention away from me? It is not my conscious informed action not to have oral contraceptives that prevent pregnancy readily and easily available to me, it is an imposition from you.
Okay, I'll grant that if you got pregnant with the assumption that you had oral contraceptives (if i switched your pills with sugar pills or something) then it would be an imposition from me. But if you knew you didnt have access to contraceptives and you got pregnant, that would be on you, assuming you knew how babies are made.
>>726351
>If my boss threatens to fire me because of my pregnancy
Then you sue him.
>>726372
Rape babies are the ones their mothers kill right after birth since they are a trauma to them. Their existence is a reminder of the trauma the victims went through.
>>726393
I'll also add that if they're in a position where if you leave them they will certainly die, then you cannot leave them until help arrives.
>>726393
But you aren't with them like you've said you're supposed to be, you're somewhere looking for paramedics. You could say getting an abortion is looking for help.
>>726398
>do you know what 'rorced' means?
Do you?
>Okay, I'll grant that if you got pregnant with the assumption that you had oral contraceptives (if i switched your pills with sugar pills or something) then it would be an imposition from me
So you don't agree with catholics?
>>726399
Suing him won't grant my job or winning the battle in court, which is fucking expensive, and it won't spare me of a burden I don't want.
>>726415
>You could say getting an abortion is looking for help.
If you're looking for someone to kill them, yeah. But that's not what you're looking for.
>>726415
correct, since i'm not a catholic. please tell me how anyone is 'forcing' you to have sex and become pregnant.
>>726411
If you can't do anything about their condition you can go look for help since standing there watching them die when you know you cannot do nothing could be framed as psychological torture.
>>726415
>Suing him won't grant my job or winning the battle in court, which is fucking expensive, and it won't spare me of a burden I don't want.
Your boss does not have the right to pressure you to get an abortion, full stop. It is *criminal*. This is not some general justification you can give, it's very particular. You might also have a boyfriend who threatens to kill himself if you do not get an abortion, but that is not a general justification.
>>726419
But you confuse rescuing someone with having a pregnancy which is unwanted burden on the mother she did not cause to someone else, someone else (the baby) caused it on her. The baby is the stranger that run her over with its existence and must be get rid of.
Also you never answered this:
>Are you saying a primitive tribe nigger is more valuable than useful education that allows people to better their own lives?
>>726421
What are you doing in a thread about catholics?
>>726422
If you get up and leave when it will surely entail their death, that is wrong. You can only leave where it would increase their chance of survival.
>>726431
>Your boss does not have the right to pressure you to get an abortion, full stop.
They can fire you if your abortion gets in the way of your performance, and between my job and a piece of shit I don't want my job is more important.
>>726432
>someone else (the baby) caused it on her.
Wrong. That is like saying the person you hit with the car inflicted you with the burden. The agency responsible for the situation is yours and whoever you had sex with.
>>726436
Looking for help tends to do that, especially if you can't do anything else.
>>726438
>they can fire you for having an abortion
>therefore I will have one
What
>>726442
Generally, but if they are stuck with say, some sort of broken bones where you have to support them or else they'll surely suffocate, you cannot leave to look for help.
>>726440
Indeed the baby inflicted me with the burden of its existence since I don't want it, it is a threat to me and as a threat it must be treated.
>The agency responsible for the situation is yours and whoever you had sex with
That's why birth control exists. The best method to exercise birth control is. at the moment, oral contraceptives such as the pill. There is no agency responsible if you deprive women of the means to execute their agency.
>>726453
Still irrelevant to abortion.
>>726456
>Indeed the baby inflicted me with the burden of its existence since I don't want it
And you might not want the person you hit with your car, but it's still your agency that's the source of the situation.
>That's why birth control exists. The best method to exercise birth control is. at the moment, oral contraceptives such as the pill. There is no agency responsible if you deprive women of the means to execute their agency.
No one in this whole thread has talked about making birth control illegal, it was purely about religious morals, which you, in your autism, felt the need to bitch about, and presumably the legality of birth control doesn't change your stance on abortion anyhow.
I 100000% understand forbidding abortion. But forbidding condoms?
If you want to be "Fruitful" after you multiply, you're going to make sure you can afford to give your kids the bare minimum care first.
>>726464
>but it's still your agency that's the source of the situation.
Technically if you say human life starts at conception then the agency is the baby's since it's his will to live that manifested, not mine to have a baby. It is an unwanted guest.
>No one in this whole thread has talked about making birth control illegal
It sure sounded so from OP.
>>726469
>I 100000% understand forbidding abortion. But forbidding condoms?
Do you forbid the pill too since it might serve as an abortificient? Are you aware that by doing this you deprive women of their agency over pregnancy and birth control?
Why do you religious nuts want to deprive women of their agency only to bitch about agency when you've forced them to be pregnant?
>>726488
>when you've forced them to be pregnant?
You could, you know, NOT have sex? Have you considered that?
>>726477
>Technically if you say human life starts at conception then the agency is the baby's since it's his will to live that manifested, not mine to have a baby
Your agency manifested the life. Just like you manifested the agency with the car, nobody necessarily had the "will to be injured".
>It sure sounded so from OP.
OP is literally about the Orthodox vs. Catholic position on condoms. Catholics say they are wrong, Orthodox say they are okay. Can you read?
>>726503
>it’s important for married couples to maintain a sex life as long as either of them has urges, as per 1 Corinthians 7:5.
How do I not have sex if my husband wants us to? Are you saying he should rape me? Or I should get a divorce perhaps?
>>726488
I never implied that. I'm not even catholic.
>>726507
>Your agency manifested the life, Just like you manifested the agency with the car
The car doesn't have a life of its own, the baby does. I drive the car since it's a lifeless object, I don't drive the baby who manifested itself of its own will and not mine.
>OP is literally about the Orthodox vs. Catholic position on condoms
Too bad the thread is about the pill not condoms.
>>726511
Being an Orthodox Christian is hard, sorry to break it to you. You also have to fast two days a week and a ton of other stuff. If you truly want to, you have to pick up your cross and follow Christ. No on says it would be easy, but as Paul said, we rejoice in our suffering and our pain, as they build strength and character. Certainly it is easier to be worldly.
>>726519
>The car doesn't have a life of its own
But the person you hit does.
>Too bad the thread is about the pill not condoms.
Except it's not. It's about whether condoms would be permissible according to Church tradition. It's not telling Catholics pills are a no-no, since they already believe that.
>>726523
>Being an Orthodox Christian is hard
I'm not an Orthodox Christian. I don't care about Abrahamic religions and I don't live my life according to them. You however seem all too keen on wanting to impose that kind of living on others.
>>726528
>But the person you hit does.
That would be me since the baby is the unwelcome surprise.
>It's about whether condoms would be permissible according to Church tradition. It's not telling Catholics pills are a no-no, since they already believe that
And I don't. I don't like them or you forcing your beliefs on me.
>>726531
Well, you don't have a problem with imposing death on the unborn because you find it sensible. Nobody really said anything more here except that is selfish and wrong.
>>726538
>That would be me since the baby is the unwelcome surprise.
No, the baby is the result of your agency. Running someone over would be an unwelcome surprise too, but you're still ultimately the agency who created the situation.
>And I don't. I don't like them or you forcing your beliefs on me.
And I don't like you forcing your beliefs on a fetus.
>>726542
They aren't people yet.
>>726547
They're human beings.
>>726547
When do they become people?
>>726542
>Nobody really said anything more here except that is selfish and wrong
Wrong. What is selfish and wrong is wanting to ruin women's lives.
>>726546
>No, the baby is the result of your agency
How? It is not my agency to get pregnant. If you tricked me or deprived me of my means to exercize birth control such as the pill it is not the result of my agency, since you have deprived me of agency.
>And I don't like you forcing your beliefs on a fetus.
And I don't like you forcing your beliefs on women.
>>726549
When they're born. Human rights are acquired after birth.
>>726548
Doesn't mean anything before birth since the mother is the only actual person in the picture.
>>726569
>When they're born. Human rights are acquired after birth.
http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babies-learn-in-the-womb
Not people?
>>726575
Nope. Not people.
>>726583
Do you think personhood is something metaphysical, or strictly legal?
>>726523
>we rejoice in our suffering and our pain
So... Christianity advocates for misery of living conditions, rape and physical/psychological trauma of women?
It's when I see shit like this that can I see why "evil" figures such as Lilith who wanted none of that shit became legit feminist icons.
>>726588
I think it should be tied down to the real world since religion does more harm than good.
>>726594
Paul was talking to people who were being murdered and ostracized from society and paupers. Paul himself was stoned more than once, as well as scourged, before finally being beheaded.
>>726598
Do you think personhood is something metaphysical, or strictly legal?
>>726601
>Paul was talking to people who were being murdered and ostracized from society and paupers
Then why do christians apply his words to everyone indiscriminately?
Learn to fuck off dude.
>>726603
I have already answered your question.
>>726606
Because they do apply to all Christians. In your case I guess it would mean no more fornication.
>>726609
No, you did not. Unless you are saying one of those two options is not of the real world.
>>726611
>Because they do apply to all Christians
But they don't. I reject them. I don't want to be a Christian if being a Christian means being this insane. I don't give a shit about his words.
>>726616
Feminism as we understand the term today would be considered insane throughout pretty much all of Western history except for the last few decades out of thousands of years.
You never replied to >>726511. How do you reconciliate depriving a woman of agency over pregnancy and birth control, her supposed duty to give sex to her husband if he wants it and abortion being supposedly her agency even if it's not?
Either you give women birth control THEY can control, so that they can have agency, which is the pill
Or you you don't give women birth control they can control but have them rely on someone else, thus depriving them of agency, so the agency excuse for abortion doesn't hold up when she doesn't want the baby.
And no, not having sex is not an option if the husband wants it, that's what your religion says.
>>726549
When evicting them from someone else's body wont kill them.
>>726657
Western history is indeed stinking disgusting horrible shit when it comes to the well-being of women. Thank goodness for feminism.
>>726675
Yeah more cunts like you making up the norm of society.
You're already in a secular nation so go quit bitching and go whore yourself with the pill skank.
>>726682
Fuck off, loser. Go kill yourself.
>>726675
Thank goodness for Christian morality for making feminism possible.
>>726692
You guys want to be the Family Values people and the Liberation of Women people at the same time?
>>724589
TENDER
I
G
H
T
BOIPUSSY
AGED 8 YEARS
>>726692
I'm pretty sure it was thanks to people understanding Christianity is a bunch of bullshit.
>>725406
Infertitlity is one of the few reasons the church accepts as valid for a true sanctioned divorce.
>>726707
Good thing people don't care about what the church says when they want a divorce.
>>726711
Except for you apparently who need to take your PMS out on something you claim not to care about.
>>726738
Do facts trigger you or something?
>>726754
You believe nazis?
>>726764
>Nietzsche
>Nazi
Are you fucking retarded? He thought antisemites and German nationalists alike were both idiots.
>>726764
Why the hell are you posting on this board if you don't have even a rudimentary education in philosophy or history/
>>726707
I think you're thinking of impotency.
>>724589
women want to be able to be fucked without the consequences. so they demand free contraceptives and free abortions.
men want to please women, so they want what women demand.
>Pregnancy pressure, or pregnancy coercion, is enacted by a woman's sexual partner when he pressures her into having unprotected sex in order to become pregnant, or into continuing or terminating the pregnancy. It might involve threats or acts of violence if the woman does not comply with the perpetrator's demands or wishes. Women who seek abortions are nearly three times as likely to have experienced reproductive pressure by a partner in the past year, compared to women continuing their pregnancies. A Guttmacher Institute policy analysis states that forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy she wants or to continue a pregnancy she does not want violates the basic human right of her reproductive health.
>>727294
>Birth control sabotage is frequently associated with physical or sexual violence, and is a contributor to high pregnancy rates—especially teenage pregnancy rates—among abused, disadvantaged women and teenagers.
Reproductive coercion can take the form of birth control sabotage, either as verbal sabotage or behavioral sabotage, and acts as an active interference with contraceptive methods. Direct actions are taken to ensure the failure of birth control (such as poking holes in or breaking condoms) or complete removal of contraception (such as flushing birth control pills down the toilet or removing contraceptive rings or patches from the body). Partners can also forbid women from using family planning or force them to have sex without protection.
>Studies on the birth control sabotage performed by males against female partners have indicated a strong correlation between domestic violence and birth control sabotage. These studies have identified two main classes of the phenomenon:
Verbal sabotage—verbal or emotional pressure not to use birth control or to become pregnant.
Behavioral sabotage—the use of force to have unprotected sexual intercourse or not to use birth control.
>14% of surveyed young mothers reported undergoing birth control sabotage. A separate study found that 66% of teen mothers on public assistance who had recently experienced intimate partner violence disclosed birth control sabotage by a dating partner. When women did try to negotiate condom use with their abusive partners, 32% said they were verbally threatened, 21% reported physical abuse, and 14% said their partners threatened abandonment.
It's good to see this thread is full of abusers and abuser supporters.
>>727300
>Domestic violence, also called "intimate partner violence", is monitored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Their survey on domestic violence measures five types of domestic violence, including control of reproductive health, citing pregnancy pressure and birth control sabotage specifically. While research remains fragmentary, women in abusive relationships appear to be at higher risk of reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancies.
>The Center for Disease Control found that:
>approximately 8.6% (or an estimated 10.3 million) of women in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, or refused to use a condom, with 4.8% having had an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, and 6.7% having had an intimate partner who refused to wear a condom;
>approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control, with 8.7% having had an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control and 3.8% having had an intimate partner who refused to wear a condom.
Also:
Pregnancy has risks and potential complications. On average, unintended pregnancies result in poorer outcomes for the mother and for the child, if birth occurs. Unintended pregnancy usually precludes pre-conception counseling and pre-conception care, and sometimes delays initiation of prenatal care.[13] The great majority of abortions result from unintended pregnancies.
More food for thought:
Results of unintended pregnancy include:
Prenatal care initiated later, and less adequate. Adversely affects health of woman and of child and less preparation for parenthood. Delay from unintended pregnancy is in addition to that from other risk factors for delay. Unwanted pregnancies have more delay than mistimed.
nintended pregnancies preclude chance to resolve sexually transmitted diseases (STD) before pregnancy. Untreated STD in pregnant woman can result in premature delivery, infection in newborn or infant death.
Preclude use of genetic testing to help make decisions about whether to become pregnant.
Women with an unintended pregnancy are more likely to suffer depression during or after pregnancy
Poorer maternal mental health
Increased risk of physical violence during pregnancy.
Reduced likelihood of breastfeeding, resulting in less healthy children.[13]
Lower mother-child relationship quality. (see also Maternal bond)
More likely that mother smokes tobacco (about 30% more likely in the US) or drinks during pregnancy, which results in poorer health outcomes and additional costs for welfare system. (see also Fetal alcohol syndrome, Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder)
More likely to delay initiation of prenatal care.
>>727320
Children whose births were unintended are:
Greater likelihood of low birth weight, particularly for unwanted pregnancies. This may be through increased risk of preterm delivery. In the US, eliminating all unwanted pregnancies would reduce rate of low birth weight by 7% for blacks, and 4% for whites, helping to decrease the large disparity in rates for whites vs. blacks.
Greater infant mortality. If all sexually active couples in the US had routinely used effective contraception in 1980, there would have been 1 million fewer abortions, 340,000 fewer live births that were unintended at conception, 5,000 fewer infant deaths, and the infant mortality rate would have been 10% lower.
Likely to be less mentally and physically healthy during childhood.
At higher risk of child abuse and neglect.
Less likely to succeed in school.
More likely to live in poverty and need public assistance.
More likely to have delinquent and criminal behavior. (see also Legalized abortion and crime effect)
Significantly lower test scores
Less likely to have a close relationship with their mother.
Unintended pregnancies lead to higher rates of maternal morbidity, and threaten the economic viability of families.
>>726947
Morality aside, it's cheaper to hand out birth control like candy versus having desperate people have more kids they don't need and can't afford. Think about all the less people who would need welfare, fewer undisciplined kids due to lack of parenting who in turn grow up to raise even more shitheads on their own.
It pays for itself. I think we all personally have know someone who is a shit human being who could of done world a favor by never coming into existence thanks to free contraceptives.
A Friendly Reminder of GOD's Abortion Rates:
A miscarriage is the loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but "spontaneous" is the key word here because the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term (i.e., it's not the mother's choice in this case, it's God's!)
According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant.
>"We estimate that about 30 to 40 percent of all conceptions result in a pregnancy loss," says.Helain Landy, M.D., Professor and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital. "This is because many women miscarry before they know they're pregnant, or before it has been confirmed by a health-care provider."
About 15-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.
More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. Miscarriages are less likely to occur after 20 weeks gestation; these are termed late miscarriages.
>About 15-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.
The KNOWN ones!
>More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy.
Which means God handles the timing of His abortions at about the same rate as abortions are done in the US. (i.e., whether God chooses or the woman chooses, the vast majority of these abortions happen by 8 to 10 weeks!)
>pic related: Abortion in the United States by gestational age, 2004. (Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
>>727411
The why do men want to force women to be pregnant when women don't want to?
>>727436
Because men are rapists and abusers who see women as unsentient objects to dispose and not as people with a mind and will of their own, that's why.
Men are disgusting.
>>727413
>>727413
samefag here,
>According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant.
>"We estimate that about 30 to 40 percent of all conceptions result in a pregnancy loss," says.Helain Landy, M.D., Professor and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital.
>About 15-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.
anyone have any thoughts on what God is doing with all those unbaptized souls?
This thread makes me want to beat little children. I have the urge to punch toddlers and scream at them they're disgusting abominations who hurt their mothers with their existence and should feel horrible and die for it.
The fag that keeps ragging about children being "a slight inconvenience" still hasn't explained how children are "a slight inconvenience" when they cause damage and risk to the mother's physical and mental health and well-being, as well deterioration of the mother's life after its birth with an unwanted child being an undue burden on the mother, causing poverty, stress, depression which all lead to a poor quality of life for both the mother and the child.
>>727454
If you fill a toilet with holy water does the baby get baptized?
>>727491
hahah, sure IF there's a Priest and a Godparent present to reject Satan and all his works during the flush.
I was Roman Catholic for the first 18-20 years of my life, faithfully singing in the choir. I'm now an atheist. My entire family (grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, sister, and cousins - all of them) remain Catholic, the cookbook variety. My mom's OK with birth control and is pro-choice. Drives me nuts.
>>727522
Why?
Catholics are supposed to love their neighbours. You don't love your neighbour if you force her to a pregnancy she does not want which is a violation of her rights as well as a psychological (and possibly physical too) trauma to her, you are causing her undue suffering. That is not love, love is wanting the well-being of your neighbour. Your mom's right.
>>727481
The reality is that modern western people care too much about well-being of their kids, shelter them too much and therefore don't see the possibility of having more than one or two of them.
Birth control, abortion and other stuff are just consequence of this.
>>727632
So you're advocating for not caring for your children?
>>727632
Actually upper class people care about their own lives as well and that's why most do not consider the possibility of having more than one or two children unless they are considerable rich and can afford required assistance so as not to hinder their own lives. It just stands that most of the west is upper class today as western nations have made themselves rich. But it is also true of rich eastern nations such as Japan. Do you want Europe and Japan to become Africa-tier with mass poverty, disease, crime and illiteracy? That will skyrocket the birth rate. The shittier living conditions become the more the birth increases, since life is meaningless at that point and you might as well shit out another slave to sell or to make a slave for you to work.
>>727636
>>727648
I'm advocating against caring for them on the level we are doing it now.
It wasn't until the explosion of crime in the late 80's and whole 90's that we've started sheltering the kids like we're doing it now, it wasn't before that moment that we've started punishing them for getting into fights, fighting "bullying" via some strange talks with psychologists, being too concerned with their future well-being to the point where we see kids as investment you have to carry on for 25 years(until it finishes university and finds a job, because of course - only plebs would go to trade school, and that's unworthy of your offspring) therefore babysitting people who are legally adult at 18 for another 7 years.
Of course it is caused by the fact that the rat race got more and more fucked up, of course it is caused by people wanting to be able to let's say - afford themselves vacations instead of living hand to mouth whole the time, sure it is.
The basis for the entire issue lays in the mentality that you have to babysit your kid into career and make him happy, instead of letting him to find happiness on his or her own.
I remember when somebody posted a photo here of Irish kids taunting British soldiers in 1971, somebody pinpointed "lol who let these brats run around alone" - of course back in the times people allowed their kids to go out and play, which isn't a case anymore but you will deny it anyway and start babbling shit about muh kids right to be railroaded into being unhappy yuppie.
>>727648
Clearly Somalia is the example he wants everyone to follow. Forget pesky things like advanced civilization, start living like a nigger today.
>>727667
yeah let's mimic suicide capitals of the world like Japan, Korea or China instead.
>>727662
>It wasn't until the explosion of crime in the late 80's and whole 90's etcs
Punishing kids for getting into fights has always been done if the fight wasn't in self-defense. Thugs, abusers and unjustly violent men have always ended up ostracized by western society.
Psychologists, proven valid, help children heal and become resilient against bullies. Dunno what you have against them. A psychologist saved a child I know from developing diabetes due to a family trauma.
I am appalled that you are not concerned with the future well-being of your children, if you just want them to slave away and be unhappy please do not have any, you are only going to make people suffer. University isn't necessarily the choice to be but if your child has the intelligence and interest for it is criminal to hinder them, as my friend's grandfather was a criminal to his father for not allowing him to pursue his innate passion for music and got treated as such. You are supposed to want their conditions to be better than yours, not to stagnate or be worse.
>Of course it is caused by the fact that the rat race got more and more fucked up
I am worried that making your living conditions better = "fucking up the rat race" to you. The former is normal and natural human desire. Are you advocating for social stagnation, social immobility and for depriving people of the possibility to better themselves and their conditions of life? Are you against basic human rights?
>>727662
>>727701
>The basis for the entire issue lays in the mentality that you have to babysit your kid into career and make him happy, instead of letting him to find happiness on his or her own.
False. You let them find happiness on their own, and if that entails a career, you support them all the time necessary for them to achieve their dreams or at least a comfortable and agreeable quality of life.
>I remember when somebody posted a photo here of Irish kids taunting British soldiers in 1971, somebody pinpointed "lol who let these brats run around alone" - of course back in the times people allowed their kids to go out and play, which isn't a case anymore but you will deny it anyway and start babbling shit about muh kids right to be railroaded into being unhappy yuppie
The Irish kids that got shot by those British soldiers you mean? I wouldn't allow them to play outside either knowing there's a trigger happy enemy soldier ready to shoot them at any moment.
>>727675
Ironically those are suicide capitals because of conservative values, wanting the individual not to have its own life but to be a mindless mechanism in the collective much like an ant in the ant hive.
>>727701
>if you just want them to slave away and be unhappy please do not have any, you are only going to make people suffer.
You see, that's what I'm talking about.
LOOOOL YOU DON'T WANT YOUR KID TO HAVE PHD HE WILL BE LOOSER FOR SURE CAREER """""SUCCESS"""""=HAPPY LIFE
>University isn't necessarily the choice to be but if your child has the intelligence and interest for it is criminal to hinder them
That includes not pushing them to university when they want to be car mechanics or electrics.
>Are you advocating for social stagnation, social immobility and for depriving people of the possibility to better themselves and their conditions of life?
I'm advocating against PUSHING people to "lol get a degree and become corpowhore" stance majority of parents have today.
>>727707
>Ironically those are suicide capitals because of conservative values, wanting the individual not to have its own life but to be a mindless mechanism in the collective much like an ant in the ant hive.
These are suicide capitals because the rat race imposed by societal norms makes people insane. Asians are absolutely 100% absorbed with the pursue of individual success and see where it lead them? The absolutely lowest birth rates in the world, the absolutely horrible mental health, the absolutely bizarre lifestyle.
>The Irish kids that got shot by those British soldiers you mean?
It was the aftermath, basically British soldiers policing Northern Ireland were photographed when kids taunted them. None of them was hurt.
>>727710
>LOOOOL YOU DON'T WANT YOUR KID TO HAVE PHD HE WILL BE LOOSER FOR SURE CAREER """""SUCCESS"""""=HAPPY LIFE
I have never encountered that. Higher education is desirable as it allows for higher skill and knowledge and it enriches the individual so that they have more bargaining power in the job market.
>That includes not pushing them to university when they want to be car mechanics or electrics.
Sure, never said anything to the contrary. However it also includes sustaining them when they don't want to be a car technician or electrics or just aren't cut out for it and do want to go to university instead.
>I'm advocating against PUSHING people to "lol get a degree and become corpowhore" stance majority of parents have today.
No parent does that. Parents push their kids to have a job since you need money to live, and if the job is good that's preferable, and good jobs tend to require degrees of some sort.
>>727717
>Asians are absolutely 100% absorbed with the pursue of individual success
>Asians
>collectivist society that shames the individual for being an individual
>individual success
Hahahahahahaha oh shit man you have no idea what you're talking about.
>The absolutely lowest birth rates in the world
That's Monaco.
>the absolutely horrible mental health, the absolutely bizarre lifestyle
Nah Japan's lifestyle etc. is pretty all right, one of the longest life expentancies in the world if not THE longest. Compare to Niger where they have billions of kids but none lives to 30.
>>727722
>I have never encountered that.
>No parent does that.
>blah blah senseless declarations.
Meanwhile:
>Higher education is desirable as it allows for higher skill and knowledge and it enriches the individual so that they have more bargaining power in the job market.
You hold fucking opinion that your career is everything. 100% corpowhore, I hope you fucking die in your own faeces.
The reality is - majority of people today are so concerned with their kid's future career that they have 1 kid at best so they can focus their efforts on it. Because the rat race got THIS insane at this point that having a sibling is a disadvantage.
Hence low birthrates.
And as I've said - the problem is wider, it comes from the fact that the only holy thing on this world isn't any kind of god people pretend to believe in but money. The cult of money is so strong that it dissolved family, education, childhood and every single other things better than communism ever could dream of.
>However it also includes sustaining them when they don't want to be a car technician or electrics or just aren't cut out for it and do want to go to university instead.
So they go to graduate in Women Studies because they can extend their childhood in this way.
>>727736
>Hahahahahahaha oh shit man you have no idea what you're talking about.
You have no idea what are you talking about. Asians are enamoured with their social status which is achievable through career and individual success. These are the people who don't hold career and work as the most important thing in life that are shamed.
>>727623
I love my neighbors because I'm a good person, not because I'm Catholic. And I agree with my mom's stance on a woman's right to chose what to do regarding pregnancy. It's the fact that she belongs to a religion that is completely AGAINST the right to choose is what's confounding.
I suppose I'd rather they be cookbook Catholics in the sense that I basically agree with their views. I didn't grow up believing non-Christians went to Hell, for example.
But when I realized my personal beliefs were not in alignment with the Church, I was able to separate. Not them.
I posted >>727413 btw
>>727736
The richer and more well-off a country is, the longer its citizens will live, the less babies it will have. Japan is the case where the birth rate is extremely low but the life expentancy is extremely high, ie those that are born are 99% assured to live and live well until they're 90.
On the other hand, the poorer and shittier a country is the less its citizens will live, the more babies it will have. Angola is a nigger country with extremely high birth rate and extremely low life expentancy, ie those that are born are 80% assured to die before 40. The situation is the same for pretty much all black african countries. Personally I favor quality over quantity.
>Women bitching a whole fucking day
You know reducing human life to worthlessness won't make us empathize with you bitches. Great you showed human rights are arbitrary and garbage when it comes to life, so why respect your reproductive ones?
Clean out your bleeding tampons cunts, after 18 no one is forcing you to do anything so sterilize yourselves and do the world a favor. I doubt any of you harpies live somewhere where you can't just pop BC and fuck like a cheap slut.
>>727755
>Personally I favor quality over quantity.
t. 80 years old guy who has to wait 5 another years until he retires.
>>727749
>You hold fucking opinion that your career is everything
Not everything, but it does play a vital role in sustaining my good life, yes.
>The reality is - majority of people today are so concerned with their kid's future career that they have 1 kid at best so they can focus their efforts on it.
That's a good thing. That's what I plan to do as well. I have planned two children max.
>And as I've said - the problem is wider, it comes from the fact that the only holy thing on this world isn't any kind of god people pretend to believe in but money. The cult of money is so strong that it dissolved family, education, childhood and every single other things better than communism ever could dream of
Money doesn't buy happiness but it sure helps. Poverty on the other hand doesn't even do that, in fact it just leads to misery. Please go make your communist rant to someone else, you sound like you want to steal my money.
>You have no idea what are you talking about
Nah, you have no idea what you are talking about. Asian societies shun individualism and the pursuit of happiness, those are western ideals.
>>727780
>That's a good thing.
Nope.
>you sound like you want to steal my money.
Oh GOD.
Let me guess, you are "meritocratic", right?
>Asian societies shun individualism and the pursuit of happiness
modern western societies aren't any different
>>727787
>Nope.
Yep.
>Let me guess, you are "meritocratic", right?
Are you for corruption and clientelism/nepotism?
>modern western societies aren't any different
False.
>>727762
t. mud-living nigger dying of ebola at 30 while leeching off euro welfare.
>>727795
>Yep.
You have no idea what are you talking about.
>Are you for corruption and clientelism/nepotism?
These are typical for heavily meritocratic systems though.
In 1920's average intelligence of Ivy League student was 115. In the 1960's it has fallen to 107, despite test score requirements being HIGHER(for meritocracy's sake), and the tests themselves not being dumbed down yet. In fact the requirements were higher than the average score in 1920's.
How could it happen?
>False.
Lies. Just like you try to lie your way out of the realisation that you're career-centred corpowhore.
>>727815
>You have no idea what are you talking about.
Actually that's you.
>These are typical for heavily meritocratic systems though
Correlation isn't causation. Intelligent people are more likely to look out for themselves and their well-being than stupid people who are just puppets to move, so intelligent people have more benefit from corruption/nepotism than idiots. However you shouldn't want to be in a system ruled by idiots, you should want a system where there's enough grease for everyone in it.
>Lies.
Truth. Asian cultures are collectivist. It is western cultures that are individualist.
>Just like you try to lie your way out of the realisation that you're career-centred corpowhore
And what's wrong with that? Do you want me to be miserable perhaps?
>>727815
>the requirements were higher than the average of Ivy league students* score in 1920's.
>>727832
>And what's wrong with that?
>>727780
>>You hold fucking opinion that your career is everything
>Not everything, but it does play a vital role in sustaining my good life, yes.
And then you tell me you're not a liar. Let me guess, meritocracy allowed you to use your supreme gentlemanly intelligence to lie better?
>>727838
>And then you tell me you're not a liar
Please point to me where did I lie. Having a good job is really important to have a good life, but as I've said, it isn't everything. It wouldn't be a good job if it didn't allow me to have a life outside it.
>>727853
>I am career centred but I pretend not to tell me why am I lying
Seriously you are pathetic.
>>727875
Career centred isn't the same as making your job the only focus of your existence, unless your job is also your passion, but that's another matter. If workaholic is what you mean by career centred, then you are mistaken in calling me career centred. I work to live I don't live to work.
Why do you people immediately jump to the scenario of single women looking for casual when those who use the pill the most are women in long-term relationships or married?
Do you think women should not have sex with their husbands?
>>727925
Men want to deprive women of agency by utilizing a birth control they have control over like oral contraceptives, only to demand they have sex with their partners and tell them "it was your choice" when they subsequently get pregnant. Except it was not my choice, it was forced on me since I was rendered unable to take my pills and was basically raped by my husband.
>>728294
?!
...
>>728294
beta
>>726711
t. Henry
>>725443
There are female condoms
Condoms are more effective than the pill
>>725631
>So you want to give all the power and control over not getting pregnant to the man?
>implying you were not the one that ceded that control by opening your legs in the first place.
Abstinence is 99.999% effective.
>>728294
Oh for fuck's sake just give him a goddamn hand-job.
>implying cunts like you have sex with their husbands in the first place.
>>724620
>Paulinism
>2016
Daily reminder female condoms are extremely dangerous if they get lost inside the body thanks to sexual activity. They are not safe like male condoms.
>>724589
>thread asks a question that could be answered in a pretty succinct way
>mfw this whole thread
The Orthodox church is split into roughly three different groups, all of whom think abortion is evil ofc, but differ in the opinion of contraception. Either it's a flat no based on that sex should be for procreation, which isn't really in line with what Paul was going on about. A flat 'it's fine', and a "ask your church father first pls'.
The Catholic church is in theory supposed to be more unified on the subject, the idea is that a pregnancy is a gift from God and sacred like all life. So anything preventing that isn't cool. That OP pic is grossly over-exaggerated from the opinion of a person who clearly thinks his church speaks for all American Catholics, but it is more than likely a small majority that think that way.
