• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abstinence, a poll

Would you accept an abstinece law?

  • Yes...I only have sex to make children.

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • No...I enjoy sex as a way to express affection.

    Votes: 15 32.6%
  • Maybe...please explain

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • You can have my bedroom, when you pry it from my cold, dead hands

    Votes: 29 63.0%

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
If the government even contemplated enacting such a law, I'd go have sex on Parliament Hill, with a sign posted near me reminding legislators of how much per day it costs to keep someone in prison and jail.
 
Yeah. I'm not going to stop having sex without intent to procreate if the law is based on some sort of religious moral platitude.
 
sounds like (among other things) and anti-gay law. Gays cannot have children so they would be banned from having sex with each other.
 
Yeah. I'm not going to stop having sex without intent to procreate if the law is based on some sort of religious moral platitude.

But if it's based on some other criteria, you might stop having non-procreative sex?
 
But if it's based on some other criteria, you might stop having non-procreative sex?

I sat back and thought about this for a minute, but I can't think of any logical reason that would be put forth that wouldn't be somehow linked to a religious/moral aversion to sexual behavior.

If you have a few I'd be glad to give you a thoughtful answer, though.
 
I sat back and thought about this for a minute, but I can't think of any logical reason that would be put forth that wouldn't be somehow linked to a religious/moral aversion to sexual behavior.

If you have a few I'd be glad to give you a thoughtful answer, though.

Nope. I can't think of a single rational reason for doing so. I can think of dozens of irrational religious, ideological and pseudo-psychological reasons though. I am constantly astounded at why followers of Abrahamic religions are so super-obsessed with sex and sexuality. It's as if they believe that unless people are constantly told to procreate they'll suddenly stop doing so. I think the global population crisis is testament to the fact that they won't.
 
Nope. I can't think of a single rational reason for doing so. I can think of dozens of irrational religious, ideological and pseudo-psychological reasons though. I am constantly astounded at why followers of Abrahamic religions are so super-obsessed with sex and sexuality. It's as if they believe that unless people are constantly told to procreate they'll suddenly stop doing so. I think the global population crisis is testament to the fact that they won't.

I read a book once about sexuality and the history of the Christian church. Original Christian sects apparently expected all followers to live completely aesthetic, hermit-ish lifestyles, completely separate from others. At some point, leaders realized it would be pretty damned hard for them to recruit and grow the religion this way, so they relegate such lifestyles to religious teachers only (monks, nuns, etc) and encouraged the general population to follow a different path defined by strict limitations on sexuality, marriage, and behavior.

I don't get the issue either, to be honest. Then again, I'm not at all religious.
 
So you're either a slut or a religious nut, according to this thread.

That's why OP was given the eye-roll in post 2.
 
So you're either a slut or a religious nut, according to this thread.

That's why OP was given the eye-roll in post 2.

Nope, it was given the largest eye-roll I could find because the notion is a straw man based upon actual beliefs and actual discussions.


This "law" would be right out of 1984, and no one would want it. In the meantime, if you don't have sex when you don't want kids, you don't run any risk of having kids, shocking no one.
 
Nope, it was given the largest eye-roll I could find because the notion is a straw man based upon actual beliefs and actual discussions.


This "law" would be right out of 1984, and no one would want it. In the meantime, if you don't have sex when you don't want kids, you don't run any risk of having kids, shocking no one.

Your backward thinking is laughable. It's sad that people still maintain this 15th-century-outlook concerning sex. In modern times, just because someone has sex, that doesn't mean that children need to be the result.
 
Your backward thinking is laughable. It's sad that people still maintain this 15th-century-outlook concerning sex. In modern times, just because someone has sex, that doesn't mean that children need to be the result.

No it doesn't mean. As long as you are responsible and take the proper precautions. Killing a human life because you are irresponsible should not be a reasonable and widely available solution.

Its is awfully backwards, and laughable of course, of you to consider personal responsibility a thing of the 15th century. Although from looking around at society, I guess it was.
 
No it doesn't mean. As long as you are responsible and take the proper precautions. Killing a human life because you are irresponsible should not be a reasonable and widely available solution.

Its is awfully backwards, and laughable of course, of you to consider personal responsibility a thing of the 15th century. Although from looking around at society, I guess it was.

How can the government determine who is or is not "responsible"? Birth control fails, people forget...preaching about personal responsibility doesn't change anything. But a life is created, and if it isn't wanted, nothing can change that.
 
Not an awful idea, but it shouldn't be a law. :ranton: People are free to do what they want, even if it's going to mess up their life at an early stage. The only thing I ask is when they make the mistake, don't cater to them. They knew the consequences, now it's time to pay-up. Let's not go murdering babies left and right (well mostly left...). If you did this and they knew that once they chose there would be no do-over teen pregnancy's would plummet. The truth is that if you start telling them that everything is going to be okay, they won't learn anything because they didn't suffer the consequences they were told. I'm not saying make them starve trying to feed an infant, because that's when adoption comes into play. My mom, my uncle, my aunt, are all adopted and in their mid 40's. Another good thing about adoption: if they have good parents, they'll understand why they were put up for adoption in the first place. that makes them 50 times less likely to make the same mistake. Adoption is not a horrible thing. My mom actually used a service to find her biological parent(other one died in car crash after she was born). and we went down and spent Christmas with her family :rantoff:
 
How can the government determine who is or is not "responsible"? Birth control fails, people forget...preaching about personal responsibility doesn't change anything. But a life is created, and if it isn't wanted, nothing can change that.

Government doesn't need to determine "who" is responsible, but rather "what" is responsible. Problem is, the government literally rewards the opposite, they reward "irresponsibility". Ask me how, and I'll prove that to you rather easily.

Nothing can change the situation of an "unwanted child"? I'll contest that. I have several friends and family members who got pregnant, but they didn't "want" a child. Nevertheless, they had them, and raised them. Ya know, ironically, none of them would take it all back in hindsight. So, at first, the pregnancy was unwanted. But once the child was born, it was a blessing.

Go talk to a few teenage moms. They say they didn't "want" a child. But the majority of them wouldn't trade it all now. Children have a strange way of warming people's hearts. And I dare say, that if a woman could get past her "reasons", whatever they may be, and not abort her baby, she would find that that baby was the biggest blessing in her life.

I also know plenty of people whose life was a mess. But when they had a child, they got their act together, and became quality, responsible people. The fact that abortion is so easily accessible and affordable, makes MEN worse too. It's a solution to "manning up" and being responsible.
 
Government doesn't need to determine "who" is responsible, but rather "what" is responsible. Problem is, the government literally rewards the opposite, they reward "irresponsibility". Ask me how, and I'll prove that to you rather easily.

Nothing can change the situation of an "unwanted child"? I'll contest that. I have several friends and family members who got pregnant, but they didn't "want" a child. Nevertheless, they had them, and raised them. Ya know, ironically, none of them would take it all back in hindsight. So, at first, the pregnancy was unwanted. But once the child was born, it was a blessing.

Go talk to a few teenage moms. They say they didn't "want" a child. But the majority of them wouldn't trade it all now. Children have a strange way of warming people's hearts. And I dare say, that if a woman could get past her "reasons", whatever they may be, and not abort her baby, she would find that that baby was the biggest blessing in her life.

I also know plenty of people whose life was a mess. But when they had a child, they got their act together, and became quality, responsible people. The fact that abortion is so easily accessible and affordable, makes MEN worse too. It's a solution to "manning up" and being responsible.

Of course your family members tell others and their own consciousness that they would not take it all back. That is how people adapt when their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been alienated in ways that cannot be undone. They rationalize the good of the existing situation and suppress into the subconscious all objections to it because they cannot change it. That does not mean it is mentally healthy. The subconscious can fester like an incurable sore, doing damage to even to one's physical health. But of course, if women live in a social circle that basically tells them they are less important than the biological children they give birth to, they will just learn not to have any individuality from God, but to be mere material, biological creatures without souls.
 
Last edited:
One of the causes of maltreatment of a child is because he/she was unwanted:

Child

It is important to emphasize that children are the victims and are never to blame for maltreatment.
A number of characteristics of an individual child may increase the likelihood of being maltreated:

being either under four years old or an adolescent
being unwanted, or failing to fulfil the expectations of parents
having special needs, crying persistently or having abnormal physical features.

Read more:

WHO | Child maltreatment
 
So, are you trying to justify abortion because a fetus may be "unwanted" and the parents might abuse it after birth?

Yup, that is what she is doing.
 
I feel no woman should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy can and does affect some women's mental health.

http://www.despenalizacion.org.ar/pdf/publicaciones/Legal_abortion_for_mental_health_indications.pdf

Also there is a link btween:

Link Between Substance Use and Abortion: The Roles of Unconventionality and Unplanned Pregnancy

Exploring the Link Between Substance Use and Abortion: The Roles of Unconventionality and Unplanned Pregnancy
 
Minnie is right on target. The mental health problems that pro-lifers sought to attribute to abortion turned out on reexamination to be due to unwanted pregnancy, because the percentage of mental health problems was no different for those who had abortions of unwanted pregnancies and those who carried the unwanted pregnancies to term and gave birth. Unwanted pregnancy is one of the most horrible things that can happen to a woman and those who have any intellect know that.
 
So, are you trying to justify abortion because a fetus may be "unwanted" and the parents might abuse it after birth?

Yes, she is. They do that sort of thing a lot.
 
Back
Top Bottom