Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[HappySqurriel]

blegs1992 said:

luinil said:

You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control?

At the time of the choice, maybe she assumes she is 100% sure she will not get pregnant if a condom is used or she turns to the morning after pill, so to her there is no risk. First, no form of protection is proven to work 100% of the time, even if he withdraws. So if birth control just doesn't work the way it should, is it right to punish her by giving her a child to raise for something she didn't have control? Now we're going into whether or not she should just be abstinent: Now it must only be allowed if you want to have a child? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that... Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior. That's the "Republican Motherhood" idea of "women should stay at home with the kids" that was all over the country before the 1940's and 50's.

 

Have you ever heard of adoption?

There are 4 year waiting list for people to adopt a baby in most of the western world, and as more and more countries allow for homosexual adoption this could easily become a 6 or 8 year waiting list.

Edit: As for the the comments "Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior" the true belief that most people would agree with is that only people who are in a position in their life where they can accept the risks associated with sexual behavior should engage in sexual behavior.