4 ms·

> Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. > They’re often not ready for that responsibility So they could have used cond

by byyll 4y ago

> Forcing someone to bring an unwanted child into this world is not enlightened. > They’re often not ready for that responsibility So they could have used condoms, the man could have avoided ejaculating where it could cause pregnancy, or they could also just not have sex or the woman could take pills or an IUD. Unless it was rape, nobody forced them to have a child. I do agree that there should be programs that help the parents more.

mikkergp 4y ago
Clarence Thomas said we should reconsider contraception as a right, which according to your logic essentially means we should reconsider sex except for having a child as a right. You can't advocate for personal responsibility and then take away all mechanisms to conduct it.
- byyll 4y ago
  I don't even know who Clarence Thomas is. It sounds like he is religious to me which as far as I know allows sex for procreation only, not for pleasure. Maybe I am wrong tho. Whoever he is, I can agree with some of his views while disagreeing with others.
  - gavinflud 4y ago
    He sits on the U.S. Supreme Court and is one of those responsible for this ruling.
erikpukinskis 4y ago
How do you feel about rape victims who are unable to prove they were raped in court and are forced to co-parent the rest of their life with their rapist? Or what about rape cases which take longer than 9 months to reach a conviction?
- byyll 4y ago
  Rape is hard to prove and it doesn't necessarily mean co-parenting with the rapist, I think it's even more likely that he avoids responsibility and escapes than become a parent. And the second issue seems to be an issue of bureaucracy and it's slowness. Those cases are both valid where I think most people would argue it's not as clear cut but I think they are mostly the exception, not the rule.
  - erikpukinskis 4y ago
    So are you saying it doesn’t matter if innocent people are tortured by a law, as long as it’s “rare”? Like… your opinion is that corner cases don’t matter in law?

by byyll 4y ago

mikkergp 4y ago

Clarence Thomas said we should reconsider contraception as a right, which according to your logic essentially means we should reconsider sex except for having a child as a right. You can't advocate for personal responsibility and then take away all mechanisms to conduct it.

byyll 4y ago
I don't even know who Clarence Thomas is. It sounds like he is religious to me which as far as I know allows sex for procreation only, not for pleasure. Maybe I am wrong tho. Whoever he is, I can agree with some of his views while disagreeing with others.
- gavinflud 4y ago
  He sits on the U.S. Supreme Court and is one of those responsible for this ruling.

erikpukinskis 4y ago

How do you feel about rape victims who are unable to prove they were raped in court and are forced to co-parent the rest of their life with their rapist? Or what about rape cases which take longer than 9 months to reach a conviction?

byyll 4y ago
Rape is hard to prove and it doesn't necessarily mean co-parenting with the rapist, I think it's even more likely that he avoids responsibility and escapes than become a parent. And the second issue seems to be an issue of bureaucracy and it's slowness. Those cases are both valid where I think most people would argue it's not as clear cut but I think they are mostly the exception, not the rule.
- erikpukinskis 4y ago
  So are you saying it doesn’t matter if innocent people are tortured by a law, as long as it’s “rare”? Like… your opinion is that corner cases don’t matter in law?