DC_DEEP said:
I may be reading you wrong, but I seem to be hearing you say "people are going to have sex, regardless." Well, yes, that's a given. But they do need to be responsible. Whether it is a pregnancy, or a new HIV infection, it's all about responsibility. Just saying "my hormones got the best of me" is not good enough.
No, you understood me right, it is me who misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that if educated, women should then have to "suffer the consequences" of an unplanned pregnancy. I see that I was wrong, so I apoligise for that assumption.
I WAS educated on the subject in high school back in the 70s, and I simply can't believe that this vital part of my upbringing was not given to my daughter, at least not by the school. I went to a small rural high school, and we even talked about homosexuality in our sex-ed class, which was
required. I have been an advocate for safer sex practises since I was 14, and have continued nurturing the seed of information that was planted by my school, my mother, and what science has existed on the subject. Despite these careful measures, people from my generation still have abortions. It frustrates me that people just don't understand that "97% effective" means that three out of a hundred times you have sex, you are still likely to conceive. If it comes down to one out of a thousand, you are still vulnerable that one time.
I am no longer young or willing to raise a child, but there's no way in fucking hell I'm giving up my sex life until menopause comes along. If, despite my careful pains, I became pregnant, it would not change my willingness to become a mother. I would just be burdened with the obligation of getting rid of it. A child I conceive in love is a beautiful thing. One that pops into me uninvited is a parasite, and I'd kill it immediately, not much thought needed. I have had an abortion, and I can assure you, it caused me no emotional stress personally at all. Dealing with society is another matter. THAT was stressful.
I've posted about this before, but I asked to have my tubes tied after I had Julianna. I knew I only wanted one child, and I had her. My doctors refused to do it because I didn't meet the criteria of either A) being 25, or B) already had THREE kids! So, I'm not allowed to get my tubes tied, even though I have insurance and can pay for it, I'm not allowed to make choices about my own body, or my future life. I NEVER wanted three kids, and nobody's going to force me to, or guilt me into carrying an unwanted baby. If I don't want it now, I don't want it later. I put forth effort not to conceive, my intentions are clear. I don't owe "society" my celibacy, and the very thought offends me.
I stand firmly behind the suggestion that if it were men who carried the babies, and not the "dirty whore" women, this would not even be a topic of discussion. It's all about subjugation of women, and nothing at all about the "preciousness" of life. That's just bullshit, but it sounds better than the truth.
edit- what I liked about your earlier post, where you suggested the fetus be extracted and implanted to a woman who DID want it, was that it would be a simple medical procedure, and one that would have felt far better to me than an abortion. Doctors who wished to could start a waiting list of women who wanted to take unwanted embryos, and call them up when a woman who didn't want hers came in. We're probably not *quite* there yet, but I doubt it's outside the realm of possibility.
I can't see how ANYBODY could object to that, on either side.