Andrew Beef wrote: The Rape Committee solutions stands; my only ancillary observation is that looking at the maths of it, only circa 14 babies are born as a result of rape each year so that’s the scale of the issue. On that basis, there’s no way that 14 cases should be the trojan horse for abortion on demand.
Andrew Beef wrote: » 20% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion; are they all rape and incest cases?! That’s abortion as a form of contraception.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » Women travelling to the UK for abortions in a way are victims as much as anything else of the media and leftist pushing people into having sex. Young people nowadays feel like there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex. They then have sex and of course things go wrong and they end up pregnant. We've gone from one extreme (with no sex allowed) to the other extreme (you're weird unless you're having lots of sex).The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Ha ha ha!!! Are you serious? Do you think older people (30's/40's/50's) dont have sex fir fun/pleasure and wait for marriage?
2wsxcde3 wrote: » No. I'm just saying it is a good idea. It keeps life simple.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » For simple people maybe
2wsxcde3 wrote: No. I'm just saying it is a good idea. It keeps life simple.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » Women travelling to the UK for abortions in a way are victims as much as anything else of the media and leftist pushing people into having sex. Young people nowadays feel like there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex. They then have sex and of course things go wrong and they end up pregnant. We've gone from one extreme (with no sex allowed) to the other extreme (you're weird unless you're having lots of sex). The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.
WhiteRoses wrote: Once again, why the obsession with other people’s bedroom activities?!? Sex is to be enjoyed. It’s a very important part about of any healthy relationship. Why are you trying to control what kind of sex other people have? Why do you care?
2wsxcde3 wrote: » The simpler you can keep life the better. But we live in a culture that is hell bent on making life as complicated for people as possible.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Why are you trying to control what kind of sex other people have? Why do you care?
2wsxcde3 wrote: » Isn't the media dictating the kind of sex lives people live? Sex and the city etc etc. Its a fact that young people nowadays feel under pressure to give the impression they are sexually active even when they aren't. That's not healthy.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » But the media and the left need to sexualise young people in order to make them think along more liberal lines and consequently they will be more likely to vote for a liberal abortion regime. The media tries to control the sex lives of young people by making them believe there is something wrong with them unless they are having sex.
Andrew Beef wrote: » I think, to be fair, that the issue isn’t the fornication per se; it the refusal to deal with the occasional consequences, i.e. a baby. It is not right to fornicate left, right, and centre, only to end the life of an unborn child just because it doesn’t suit. Fornication should not take place unless both participants are willing to accept that life may be created.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I don’t think so, I think people have more freedom to explore their sexuality and experiment in a way they couldn’t before.
The older you get, the better and better an idea only having sex inside marriage seems. No STIs, no cancer causing HPV, no unwanted pregnancies, no timewasters (of men who are only after one thing) ...and you know the person you're dating is genuine as they are willing to wait till marriage.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » The "freedom" is just an illusion. Are young people free to say they intend to wait until marriage to have sex? No they are not. They are immediately looked upon by their piers as being weird (the same piers that have been brainwashed by the media and don't realize it). There is no freedom when it comes to sex for young people. You have to do things the way other people do it, the way dictated by the media and the left. And that means you are weird unless you are having sex.
January wrote: » I was married when I had an abortion. (ó still am married just as an FYI to the same person). I was not married when I had my very unplanned pregnancy that I decided to keep (same father still). Unplanned pregnancies happen to married people too.
WhiteRoses wrote: » More lies. Of course they are free to wait until they marry if they so wish. I am in my mid 20’s and I have never felt this pressure you speak of, either from men, my friends, or society as a whole. I don’t know where you are getting these notions from, I certinaly don’t go around discussing my sex life with my colleagues and acquaintances, how do you know for sure all these people are having all this sex? Who is going around forcing all these young people into having sex they don’t want? And what has this got to do with the referendum?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Andrew Beef wrote: » I think, to be fair, that the issue isn’t the fornication per se; it the refusal to deal with the occasional consequences, i.e. a baby. It is not right to fornicate left, right, and centre, only to end the life of an unborn child just because it doesn’t suit. Fornication should not take place unless both participants are willing to accept that life may be created. ‘Fornicate????’ You sound the Westboro Baptist Church now, that’s the word they use! Anyway, I would consider bringing a baby into the world to be a bit more serious than an ‘occasional consequence’. A child should be much more significant and important than an occasional inconvenience, as you so nicely dismissed it as. Do you think it’s in the very best interests of any child to be born to a mother who does not want him, and is forced into motherhood? Is that a good precedent for a happy, healthy, loving childhood? Or do you just want to punish the woman for ‘fornicating’ and enjoying sex?
2wsxcde3 wrote: » If a 25 year old today says they intend on waiting till marriage to have sex ...the sniggering would start. No one is free to say that today.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Can you back up that with a link to prove what your saying, or is this just more anecdotal stories?
Andrew Beef wrote: » “Fornication” is a term for extra-martial sex. To answer your question, a woman being forced into motherhood is the lesser of two evils compared with the killing of an unborn child. If women (and men) want to fornicate, they must accept the possibility of a baby being conceived. Abortion is a “get out of jail free” card that neither the male nor the female protaganists should be allowed.
2wsxcde3 wrote: » You don't need a link for the obvious.
