Humans wouldn't be around if there weren't a physical drive to have sex, for carrying on the species, so there is apparently enough interest to keep humans going. Yes, there will be people who aren't interested in sex or who abstain for religious reasons. What I was trying to say is that sex is too often tied to moral behavior or patriarchal religious "rules" (see: Catholicism). Sex is a natural activity that comes into play once teenagers are physically able to have/father children. Expecting all young people to abstain is unrealistic.
I don't expect them all to abstain. I'm just saying they should use enough contraceptives that they are satisfied that the risk of unwanted pregnancy is within a range of values they find acceptable. Then they decide whether they want to take the risk or not given they may not be able to have an abortion if the state decides abortions are unethical and should be illegal.
Or alternatively, they could use one of the other free contraceptive options discussed below which do not even require abstinence.
I disagree with this comparison. Rape isn't about sex; it's about power, control and violence.
Not all rapists have the same motivations. This sounds like an assumption you are making that lacks evidence. Some % of them may just be incels who want to have sex with an attractive woman to satisfy their physiological and psychological urges. Even if the % of them in this latter category is small, the fact they exist makes my comparison valid in their cases.
Again, ethics should have little to do with sex.
I disagree. If you are going to expect people to behave ethically in one area (food), I see little reason to think ethical behavior expectations would be different in another area (sex). Both food and sex involve strong physiological and psychological urges, so it's actually an excellent comparison.
In the same way we should expect people to resist urges to consume animal products because animal cruelty is unethical, we should expect them to behave in such ways in the sexual area of life such that abortions are no longer necessary given the ethical problems with abortion -- particularly given the possibility the fetus may experience great suffering from the abortion.
Religion and patriarchy have dictated what is and isn't acceptable behavior regarding sex, especially when it comes to women.
If abortion is unethical, it's unethical regardless of what some priest with religious delusions says about the topic. Same for what feminists say about the topic.
The only topic that should be focused on is whether we have an ethical responsibility toward the fetus or not. These other discussion topics are peripheral at most to the most important topic in the abortion debate.
The typical double standard: Women who "sleep around" have been considered "promiscuous," "impure," even "slutty." Men who do the same are considered "studs" and "virile."
That's because men and women have different expectations of each other and in general tend to want different things from the opposite sex.
I also don't really consider it relevant to this discussion. Again, if abortion is unethical, that is still the case regardless of whether men have a general tendency to dislike promiscuous women.
Yes, here I am on a vegan forum, because resisting cravings for animal foods results in less cruelty to animals, who don't have a say in how they're commodified/treated by humans. And before someone says a fetus doesn't have a say, either, the animals in question are already born, a fetus is not.
Whether a fetus is inside the woman or outside of the woman is irrelevant to the issue of whether we have an moral responsibility of behaving toward the fetus in a compassionate and ethical manner.
It is known or strongly suspected by medical experts that the fetus develops the capacity to experience pain prior to birth. Therefore, at a minimum, abortion restrictions are arguably ethical because of our social responsibility to reduce fetal suffering in much the same way that restrictions on meat consumption are an ethical way to reduce animal suffering.
Abortion advocates in the US even oppose restrictions on abortions when the fetus is so far along in development that medical experts believe it can experience pain, as I indicated and provided evidence and sources for in a prior comment. This is highly unethical behavior for those who think we have an ethical responsibility to reduce animal suffering, because if we have an ethical responsibility to reduce animal suffering... then we also have an ethical responsibility to reduce fetal suffering.
Wow, privileged much? There are millions of people in the U.S. who can't afford health insurance or work for employers who don't offer health insurance. Or maybe they work a bunch of part-time, so employer-sponsored health care isn't an option. The Affordable Care Act has helped in this regard, but many of the plans remain unaffordable because of very high deductibles.
Abstinence is free. Condoms are cheap. Non-penetrative sex is free. Mutual masturbation is free. People have other options. They could also join the military, which seems to provide free contraceptives to its members based on what I pulled up from a quick Bing search.
There are options like this which don't require abstinence yet are still free and avoid pregnancy:
en.wikipedia.org
In any case, their financial inadequacies and physiological urges do not excuse them from expectations of ethical conduct.
I'll give you that condoms are cheap, but if you're in a family that can't afford groceries or is struggling to pay the mortgage or rent and utilities, I'm thinking condoms aren't high on the list of priorities.
People in that situation can use the free contraceptive options I mentioned (non-penetrative sex, mutual masturbation, abstinence), or join the military and have contraceptives provided to them as an employment benefit.
And if they are so poor they can't afford condoms, the job training, military benefits, and education benefits the military provides would probably be a massive benefit to their financial situation... so that's an option they should probably give serious consideration.
In any case, their financial inadequacies and physiological urges do not excuse them from expectations of ethical conduct.
And low-income people shouldn't be punished for unfortunate financial situations. Forcing a teenager to have a baby when it's financially untenable seems cruel to me.
I agree that society should not "punish" people for their financial situations. However, it does seem ethical for society to put legal limitations on what such people are free to do to fetuses for ethical reasons.
In much of this conversation, you keep going back to people's financial situations as a justification for inflicting harm on a fetus and to justify people in using fewer contraceptive methods than they probably should. If people are too poor to afford condoms or other contraceptives, I would suggest that having a discussion about ways to reduce poverty or increase contraceptive use among the American population might be more productive than demanding the legal freedom to harm the fetus.
www.msnbc.com
