I mean.....they would HAVE to be, right? I mean, they would NEVER, EVER take the risk of getting a woman PREGNANT outside of marriage, right?
How funny. Lots and lots of male virgins walking around.....or LIARS.
2007-04-04 07:45:08 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For the lovely lass who's "embarrassed" for me?
READ THE QUESTION, dear. Condoms are not 100%, no birth control is. Thus the "risk" wording in my question.
Nah-nah-nah boo boo to YOU.
2007-04-04 07:51:31 · update #1
OH? "Go play in traffic?"
HARDY HAR HAR!
"pro-life" my ***.
2007-04-04 07:52:42 · update #2
i find this a very good question...
2007-04-04 07:47:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Why would a pro-life male have to be a virgin before he got married? I don't get your thinking there.
1. He uses birth control and the girl uses birth control.
2. Even if his girl got pregnant, it does not mean he has to have an abortion. He just raises the child.
Being pro-life and having pre-marital sex has NOTHING to do with one another.
Not all pro-lifers are Christians.
So how does a pro-lifer having pre-marital sex mean he is a liar? I don't get it.
And as for the dude that says masturbation is killing babies.... it isn't. There is no connection there. Life hasn't started yet. There has to be an egg to make life dude.
As for Jedi.... why wouldn't a male have a choice in the abortion decision? It's his baby too.
2007-04-04 13:12:14 · answer #2 · answered by commish_guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Grow up.
It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY by BOTH persons. Quit blaming men only. That is just foolish.
Also, how long has it been that we've had condoms/birth control on the market? And available at every convenience store, etc.? It's the responsible thing to do, if you're going to go down that road.
Agreed, condoms are not 100% effective as birth control. Obviously you know that going in. Most people do I bet.
OK, I read you're statement again, I don't think you have a clue about good men. And it has nothing to do with Pro life, or pro choice.
2007-04-04 08:00:14 · answer #3 · answered by smatthies65 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Just because I am anti-abortion does not mean I am anti-pregnancy. The creation of life is a beautiful thing, its the killing of that life that is the dreadful thing. You do know that abortion is not the only option right? Adoption is a wonderful thing. there are tons of families out there that cannot have children. Adoption is a great answer to that problem. My birth mother was 14 when I was born. Luckily she chose to put me up for adoption. I ended up with 2 wonderful parents and could not be happier.
2007-04-04 08:27:48 · answer #4 · answered by banditcorkscrew 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
For me, pro-life does mean anti-abortion, but it also means anti-embryonic stem cell "therapies", anti-euthanasia, and anti-death penalty. It also means supporting pregnant women with whatever they need (emotional, social, financial educational), educating all people about the responsibilities that go along with their relationships, and helping young people, particularly girls, with self protective behaviours and confidence. It means lobbying for ethically neutral stem cell research, such as adult stem cell and umbilical cord blood research and therapies, and more facilities for women to be able to donate their umbilical cord blood for these purposes. (There is only one place in my whole state you can do that, and then only within certain hours on weekdays.) It means promoting proper pallative care, psychiatric services, more affordable and better assistive technologies for independant living and whatever else can help improve the quality of life for those in need. It means advocating for the end of the death penalty and torture, even in cases where the public opinion is against the idea. So renaming the prolife movement to anti abortion is not on for me, but maybe those of us who are truly pro-life should suggest those who are "single issue" pro-lifers get themselves their own little lobby group and let us focus on the big picture.
2016-05-17 06:09:45 · answer #5 · answered by amada 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pro-life is not equal to anti-abortion.
I consider myself to be pro-life. That means, if I made a woman pregnant, I will encourage the woman to keep the child, and I will support the child and the mother's life, because it is my responsibility, and I value life. The child (my child) should have the chance to live.
Yet, I don't judge other people for choices they make, and it ain't my business what they do with their bodies. If it's not my child, it's not my business.
2007-04-04 08:59:29 · answer #6 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily so.
They might be male whores who sleep with girls on the pill, or they've had a vasectomy, or they wear one, or even two condoms! LOL! there are many ways to have sex without the end result being a baby. Still, some of them could be virgins. My husband is "pro-life", as am I , and he had children when we married. (He had never been married prior to me). He just made sure to always wear a condom, and his girlfriend was on the pill, until they decided to have a baby.
2007-04-04 07:51:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am pro-life. I am not a virgin.
In your connotation of "the anti-abortion" male, you forget that there are those who do choose to have sex, but have the moral integrity to take responsibility of nurturing new life if/when WE get pregnant. It is your body (the pregnan woman of course) holding the new life, but that new life in your body is depending on you.
The issue isn't 100% abstinence. The issue is understanding that the act of sex is not just an act of physical gratification, but one that can and (and does quite often) lead to new life.
People who have sex and naively believe that they wont get pregnant are practicing a form of instant gratification without planning for consequences of their actions. Sex by its very nature is a life-creating act. That it feels good is secondary. Instant gratification addicts forget that.
2007-04-04 07:57:24 · answer #8 · answered by xujames21 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'd be willing to bet that about 75% of them aren't virgins when they marry. Personally, I think males shouldn't have a say whatsoever in abortion rights. Sure, they have to be there to make the baby, but after that it's basically the women's responsibility right? At least thats what so many of them think.
2007-04-04 07:50:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm sure some are virgins, but like most of the population, I bet most of them are not. You are actually proceeding from a false premise, that being a pro-lifer means you automatically refuse to use contraception. The drug store sell lots of condoms to guys who think abortion is wrong but still want to get lucky.
2007-04-04 07:49:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Being pro life doesn't mean you have to be a virgin when you marry.....what it means is being man enough to take responsibility for a life you have created. Abortion rights have nothing to do with marriage, your analogy doesn't make sense to me.
There are also about a zillion kinds of protection out there....so I would say a pro choice male would have to be sexually responsible, but not necessarily a virgin.
2007-04-04 07:49:40 · answer #11 · answered by deathstarcanteen 2 · 8⤊ 3⤋