practice the rule of no sex before marriage? I'm in college and I have a very conservative republican friend who is pro-life. However she also has practiced "safe sex" with multiple partners. If you think life is so precious shouldn't you refrain from having sex until you are ready to have children. If you are pro-life are you waiting to have sex until you are ready to have children?
2007-03-10 10:10:32 · 7 answers · asked by healthyleeroy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I feel that safe sex is never %100 safe, and that is the reason some girls do become pregnant.
2007-03-10 10:17:37 · update #1
and to take that risk for a pro-life supporter is irresponsible?
2007-03-10 10:18:47 · update #2
I agree to a point, but at least your friend is smart enough to take some *responsibility* for herself and practices safe sex. Sounds to me like she's a very capable young lady and will be able to handle whatever comes her way. Why does it bother you so much?
2007-03-10 10:15:00 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I assume that some pro-life supporters do not necessarily believe that a person has to be married to have a child. They simply believe that once a woman is pregnant they should carry the baby to term. However, as you so correctly pointed out, even "safe sex" is not a 100% assurance that conception will not occur. I would think that a person who believed that all babies conceived should be born would think carefully before having sex, especially with a man that they may not wish to be associated with for years.
BTW, my wife is pro-choice, but saved herself for marriage--goes to show that prizing virginity really is not related to one's stance on abortion rights.
2007-03-10 10:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by KCBA 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I used to make that same argument against pro-lifers until someone convinced me otherwise. It seems that if life is SO sacred, it would be immoral to withhold the opportunity for a life to exist, it would be immoral for girls who have just had their first periods not to start reproducing, etc.
Someone told me that people can draw lines at the extremes or somewhere in-between. He was staunchly pro-life (I'm not) and said the mainstream position of pro-lifers is that life begins at conception; therefore, if a life has not been conceived yet, it does not contradict a pro-life ideology to have sex before marriage.
2007-03-10 10:47:58 · answer #3 · answered by Jesus Jones 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand your question. You are saying why even take the risk by having sex? However, the act that prolifers are against is not in the creating of life, its in the taking. So your friend would be a hypocrite only if she became prego, and then aborted the baby.
2007-03-10 12:16:57 · answer #4 · answered by lyquidskye 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is absurd.Birth control is much more humane than ripping a baby from it's mother womb. That this almost the dumbest thing i ever heard a Liberal say.
2007-03-10 10:18:01 · answer #5 · answered by carolinatinpan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
She is using protection......... even if she did get pregnant I'm sure she would handle it properly. There is always adoption. I think adoption is a much better alternative than sucking a baby down a sink drain. Don't you?
2007-03-10 10:18:55 · answer #6 · answered by luv3dbb 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are very confused....We practice SAFE sex to prevent pregnancy...and should one occur we accept....RESPONSIBILITY...a very dirty word to you libbies.
We accept that every action we take may have consequences....
2007-03-10 10:16:03 · answer #7 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋