FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Should single pregnant women sleep with men from fab
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t think it’s controversial at all. It’s no one’s business but their own " so was that a yes or no or a sit on the fence comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes. Why not. " say if your ex was sleeping wit a pregnant woman you found out he'd met on fab wud u be happy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes. Why not. say if your ex was sleeping wit a pregnant woman you found out he'd met on fab wud u be happy " If it's my ex, why would I care? It's up to the people in question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes. Why not. say if your ex was sleeping wit a pregnant woman you found out he'd met on fab wud u be happy " He's an ex, they're both grown ups, entirely up to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter" Why is this bothering you OP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's up to women what they want,but I personally can't get my head around women that do. I would have thought it was a very intimate time between a man and a woman and their precious cargo. " She doesn't have a man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It's up to women what they want,but I personally can't get my head around women that do. I would have thought it was a very intimate time between a man and a woman and their precious cargo. She doesn't have a man." Yeah sorry just re-read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Op, how would you know if you were having sex with a woman who was say, eight weeks pregnant? Is there a difference if the pregnancy is actually showing, do you feel there should be a cut off before which it's acceptable and after which it isn't? What's the difference between having sex with a woman before the baby is born and after?" Flatter belly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter" Yes they should, me specifically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes. Why not. " love your eyes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Any woman having sex with strangers while they are pregnant are within their rights. My opinion is they have a duty of care towards the child they are carrying and should have the safest sex they can. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't think its for us to pontificate on what other peoples life choices are in this case its pretty sad some people think we should. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t think it’s controversial at all. It’s no one’s business but their own so was that a yes or no or a sit on the fence comment" Yes if they want to, no if they don’t want to. It’s their business. Being pregnant doesn’t take away a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter" That is up to the woman to decide. It's not up to anyone else to decide. If a guy or couple do not want to meet a pregnant woman that is their choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Any woman having sex with strangers while they are pregnant are within their rights. My opinion is they have a duty of care towards the child they are carrying and should have the safest sex they can. " Agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't think its for us to pontificate on what other peoples life choices are in this case its pretty sad some people think we should. " What a ridiculous point of view. As if the only morals we need to worry about are our own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't think its for us to pontificate on what other peoples life choices are in this case its pretty sad some people think we should. " pontificate love that word but in regard to subject the potentially pregnant woman has to think about two people now she has a moral obligation to her unborn child to do everything in her power to make her body the healthiest she can in order to nurture the growth of her child or children, their is always a risk be it a small one that you could affect the pregnancy, it's a small part of your life and hopefully a happy point in your life, do your best for you pregnancy but having said that some people like to risk things and as long as they are happy with the outcome then as an adult that's the choice they make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes. Why not. say if your ex was sleeping wit a pregnant woman you found out he'd met on fab wud u be happy If it's my ex, why would I care? It's up to the people in question. " Maybe it’s the op baby | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter" What’s it got to do with you or anybody else for that matter. Worry about your own life and let others worry about theirs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t understand all of the ‘it’s none of our business’ replies? We have been asked our opinions and I’m happy to give mine. I’m not directly interfering in a persons life! My opinion is that it’s wrong because in MY world, children should be raised in a stable relationship and not use somebody as a sperm donor. This is a simplistic opinion however." yes and stay together as a family unit and weather the storms of life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't think its for us to pontificate on what other peoples life choices are in this case its pretty sad some people think we should. " Totally agree - why is it such a big deal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter What’s it got to do with you or anybody else for that matter. Worry about your own life and let others worry about theirs. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter" I was pregnant and I'm single. No way would I of met for sex with anyone from here. I offered socials only to help those without an in person verification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think I’ve read in the latest giudence from the association of midwives that they positively recommend it." Not with random strangers! They base that statement as if mum is still in a relationship with babys dad. During pregnancy the mother has lots of blood and urine tests. To ensure her health and that of the baby. If all clear then obviously mum and dad are healthy. So no reason for baby's parents to stop having sex. Randoms from a sex site are unpredictable. You don't know what anyone has. Even a simple cold sore can pose serious health risks to an unborn child and a new born. In fact a new born died from being kissed by a relative with a cold sore! True story! Condoms break. Condoms slip off. Some guys take them off when the woman is unaware. You just don't know where that person has been before sleeping with a pregnant woman. You don't know where his sexual ex partner had been before sleeping with him. So bad health can and does pass along like a chain effect. The risk May be small but it's still a risk. So no it's not just down to pregnant woman to take extra care in her condition, it's up to you men too. I'm amazed some find sustaining from sex with randoms for 9 months, so difficult! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think I’ve read in the latest giudence from the association of midwives that they positively recommend it. Not with random strangers! They base that statement as if mum is still in a relationship with babys dad. During pregnancy the mother has lots of blood and urine tests. To ensure her health and that of the baby. If all clear then obviously mum and dad are healthy. So no reason for baby's parents to stop having sex. Randoms from a sex site are unpredictable. You don't know what anyone has. Even a simple cold sore can pose serious health risks to an unborn child and a new born. In fact a new born died from being kissed by a relative with a cold sore! True story! Condoms break. Condoms slip off. Some guys take them off when the woman is unaware. You just don't know where that person has been before sleeping with a pregnant woman. You don't know where his sexual ex partner had been before sleeping with him. So bad health can and does pass along like a chain effect. The risk May be small but it's still a risk. So no it's not just down to pregnant woman to take extra care in her condition, it's up to you men too. I'm amazed some find sustaining from sex with randoms for 9 months, so difficult! " But risk is there regardless. The unborn child’s father could easily be a member of Fab and be sleeping with every Sue, Susie & Susan so he could be passing on god knows what to the pregnant woman also. Strangers are a risk yes, but the child’s father could also be a risk if he is sleeping around behind the mothers back. Nothing comes without risks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think I’ve read in the latest giudence from the association of midwives that they positively recommend it. Not with random strangers! They base that statement as if mum is still in a relationship with babys dad. During pregnancy the mother has lots of blood and urine tests. To ensure her health and that of the baby. If all clear then obviously mum and dad are healthy. So no reason for baby's parents to stop having sex. Randoms from a sex site are unpredictable. You don't know what anyone has. Even a simple cold sore can pose serious health risks to an unborn child and a new born. In fact a new born died from being kissed by a relative with a cold sore! True story! Condoms break. Condoms slip off. Some guys take them off when the woman is unaware. You just don't know where that person has been before sleeping with a pregnant woman. You don't know where his sexual ex partner had been before sleeping with him. So bad health can and does pass along like a chain effect. The risk May be small but it's still a risk. So no it's not just down to pregnant woman to take extra care in her condition, it's up to you men too. I'm amazed some find sustaining from sex with randoms for 9 months, so difficult! But risk is there regardless. The unborn child’s father could easily be a member of Fab and be sleeping with every Sue, Susie & Susan so he could be passing on god knows what to the pregnant woman also. Strangers are a risk yes, but the child’s father could also be a risk if he is sleeping around behind the mothers back. Nothing comes without risks. " Also the child that died after being kissed by a relative with a cold sore... that was a family member not some random stanger. That alone shows risks aren’t just with random unknowns on a swingers site. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"woman can do what she likes with her body.me personaly i wouldnt have any problem meeting with a pregnant woman" "Her body" Yeah because she chooses to kick herself hundreds of times a day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"woman can do what she likes with her body.me personaly i wouldnt have any problem meeting with a pregnant woman" dicks thinking again though, squeeze it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Op, didn't you find your answer on the other thread earlier today?" no I was about to post a comment and got told by fab that I wasn't invited bk on to the thread it wasn't a bad comment I was just expressing my personal opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. " don't you think some people need help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. " It is. The risk of having protected sex is very small and that's not the decision I inherently have a problem with. But earlier this year there was a pregnant woman on fab racking up triple digit verifications, all bareback. Anyone who doesn't understand why that's immoral is simply lacking a moral compass all together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t understand all of the ‘it’s none of our business’ replies? We have been asked our opinions and I’m happy to give mine. I’m not directly interfering in a persons life! My opinion is that it’s wrong because in MY world, children should be raised in a stable relationship and not use somebody as a sperm donor. This is a simplistic opinion however.yes and stay together as a family unit and weather the storms of life " Apparently I’ve stepped through a time portal to the mid-60’s What if a happily married expecting couple are Swingers & choose to continue meeting during the pregnancy? No one is saying that this pregnant woman has walked out on the father to pursue a life of hedonism Swinging & being a loving family unit are not mutually exclusive. A woman - any woman - has the right to decide what she should or shouldn’t do with her body, regardless of pregnancy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t understand all of the ‘it’s none of our business’ replies? We have been asked our opinions and I’m happy to give mine. I’m not directly interfering in a persons life! My opinion is that it’s wrong because in MY world, children should be raised in a stable relationship and not use somebody as a sperm donor. This is a simplistic opinion however.yes and stay together as a family unit and weather the storms of life Apparently I’ve stepped through a time portal to the mid-60’s What if a happily married expecting couple are Swingers & choose to continue meeting during the pregnancy? No one is saying that this pregnant woman has walked out on the father to pursue a life of hedonism Swinging & being a loving family unit are not mutually exclusive. A woman - any woman - has the right to decide what she should or shouldn’t do with her body, regardless of pregnancy." true but it is a little irresponsible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help" Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is my personnel view me personally I think its quite freaky that a man wud knowingly sleep with a a woman bearing the unborn child of another man and and here's a thought and its only a thought how do you think the farther of that child would feel if he found out that his ex the mother of his unborn child was sleeping with a man shed met on fab mmm now theyres food is it a case of a lack of empathy for the farther look I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just asking for peoples opinions on the subject and this is my final comment on the subject to the men out they're who wud sleep wit a woman who was pregnant how wud u feel if it was your pregnant ex just place yourself in to that situation cause as the farther of a beautiful eighteen yr old girl I'd be far from happy and so they're you have it " the farther the better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make." No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. " There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter" No controversy whatsoever. They’re having a baby, not taking a vow of celibacy. Good on anyone who still feels horny enough to do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t understand all of the ‘it’s none of our business’ replies? We have been asked our opinions and I’m happy to give mine. I’m not directly interfering in a persons life! My opinion is that it’s wrong because in MY world, children should be raised in a stable relationship and not use somebody as a sperm donor. This is a simplistic opinion however." What are you talking about? She's already pregnant; should she still meet men from here while she is pregnant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous." What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is my personnel view me personally I think its quite freaky that a man wud knowingly sleep with a a woman bearing the unborn child of another man and and here's a thought and its only a thought how do you think the farther of that child would feel if he found out that his ex the mother of his unborn child was sleeping with a man shed met on fab mmm now theyres food is it a case of a lack of empathy for the farther look I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just asking for peoples opinions on the subject and this is my final comment on the subject to the men out they're who wud sleep wit a woman who was pregnant how wud u feel if it was your pregnant ex just place yourself in to that situation cause as the farther of a beautiful eighteen yr old girl I'd be far from happy and so they're you have it " Says a man... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails " Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. It is. The risk of having protected sex is very small and that's not the decision I inherently have a problem with. But earlier this year there was a pregnant woman on fab racking up triple digit verifications, all bareback. Anyone who doesn't understand why that's immoral is simply lacking a moral compass all together. " Really?! Jesus that isn't good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society." I'm sorry in this instance if you regard that baby or babies with any sense of priority and as a father I would then sense has to be paramount | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society." Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. It is. The risk of having protected sex is very small and that's not the decision I inherently have a problem with. But earlier this year there was a pregnant woman on fab racking up triple digit verifications, all bareback. Anyone who doesn't understand why that's immoral is simply lacking a moral compass all together. Really?! Jesus that isn't good." Yes, I stuck them on our hotlist just to make sure we blocked all their verifications. To be honest, it was all the usual suspects and mostly people we had already blocked for similar behaviour with other infected people. I tell myself that they were probably HIV positive before they got pregnant and that helps me feel a bit less upset about it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. " There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically." Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. " You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy." think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I know this could be a controversial subject but I'm just interested in what peoples points of view please keep comments to the subject matter No controversy whatsoever. They’re having a baby, not taking a vow of celibacy. Good on anyone who still feels horny enough to do it. " I was super horny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy." Again, law and morals are seperate things. We don't drive on the right because it's the moral thing to do, it's just the law. Your lack of compassion for the most vulnerable people is outstanding. To pretend that casual unprotected sex is more important than human life is really the bottom of the barrel as far as morals go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever " And that has never stopped some women doing things that could harm their unborn child, or neglecting their child after they are born. So what is your point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy. Again, law and morals are seperate things. We don't drive on the right because it's the moral thing to do, it's just the law. Your lack of compassion for the most vulnerable people is outstanding. To pretend that casual unprotected sex is more important than human life is really the bottom of the barrel as far as morals go. " The OP doesn’t mention unprotected sex in his post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever " Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy. Again, law and morals are seperate things. We don't drive on the right because it's the moral thing to do, it's just the law. Your lack of compassion for the most vulnerable people is outstanding. To pretend that casual unprotected sex is more important than human life is really the bottom of the barrel as far as morals go. The OP doesn’t mention unprotected sex in his post. " I gave it as an example right before, we've got a further clarification from our resident radical feminist that drugs and smoking are also more important than the health of a baby. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. " Ha see that's your weakness | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness " They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy. Again, law and morals are seperate things. We don't drive on the right because it's the moral thing to do, it's just the law. Your lack of compassion for the most vulnerable people is outstanding. To pretend that casual unprotected sex is more important than human life is really the bottom of the barrel as far as morals go. The OP doesn’t mention unprotected sex in his post. I gave it as an example right before, we've got a further clarification from our resident radical feminist that drugs and smoking are also more important than the health of a baby. " I've actually kep my own personal opinion out of it because it's irrelevant to the argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... " I don't give a crap about the law governing it it's about a child that ultimately is your daughter or son that hopefully the parent will love and nurture for the rest of its life, common sense and a sense of proprietary are needed here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... I don't give a crap about the law governing it it's about a child that ultimately is your daughter or son that hopefully the parent will love and nurture for the rest of its life, common sense and a sense of proprietary are needed here " emotions don't make good arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... I don't give a crap about the law governing it it's about a child that ultimately is your daughter or son that hopefully the parent will love and nurture for the rest of its life, common sense and a sense of proprietary are needed here emotions don't make good arguments. " Neither does fundamentalism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... I don't give a crap about the law governing it it's about a child that ultimately is your daughter or son that hopefully the parent will love and nurture for the rest of its life, common sense and a sense of proprietary are needed here emotions don't make good arguments. " in my mind they do in this instance I'm spot on no argument | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... I don't give a crap about the law governing it it's about a child that ultimately is your daughter or son that hopefully the parent will love and nurture for the rest of its life, common sense and a sense of proprietary are needed here emotions don't make good arguments. Neither does fundamentalism " Autonomy isn't fundamentalism, women have had it taken away do many times you dunno how you come to that conclusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. Ha see that's your weakness They actually can kill someone if they want. They know they will get taken to court for it though because society doesn't approve. But hey laws don't support morals or anything... I don't give a crap about the law governing it it's about a child that ultimately is your daughter or son that hopefully the parent will love and nurture for the rest of its life, common sense and a sense of proprietary are needed here emotions don't make good arguments. Neither does fundamentalism Autonomy isn't fundamentalism, women have had it taken away do many times you dunno how you come to that conclusion?" Fundamentalism, noun strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline. You've got once principle, autonomy, and you're basing everything off that. The Catholic Church has more nuance around abortion than you've shown about the basic responsibility of a mother to take care of her baby. I'm embarassed for you, but glad people can see your feminist views for what they are. Devoid of any moral value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is my personnel view me personally I think its quite freaky that a man wud knowingly sleep with a a woman bearing the unborn child of another man and and here's a thought and its only a thought how do you think the farther of that child would feel if he found out that his ex the mother of his unborn child was sleeping with a man shed met on fab mmm now theyres food is it a case of a lack of empathy for the farther look I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just asking for peoples opinions on the subject and this is my final comment on the subject to the men out they're who wud sleep wit a woman who was pregnant how wud u feel if it was your pregnant ex just place yourself in to that situation cause as the farther of a beautiful eighteen yr old girl I'd be far from happy and so they're you have it the farther the better " lol that made me chuckle nice to see people still have a sence of humer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. " one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol" Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just want to say a big thankyou to all the people who have put input into this topic long live free speech and freedom of choice weather we agree with them choices or not cauas at the end of the day we live and die by the choices we make " Weather was great today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. " Don't bother dragging me into your fallacious argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just want to say a big thankyou to all the people who have put input into this topic long live free speech and freedom of choice weather we agree with them choices or not cauas at the end of the day we live and die by the choices we make Weather was great today " lol sure was | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just a thought on morals and morality I agree morals shouldn't be shoved in peoples faces but as a society are we on a very slippery slope with a society with out morals or any sense of morality" welcome to fab | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I agree morals shouldn't be shoved in peoples faces" Nobody really believes that. We celebrate morals being shoved in people's faces, albeit after the victory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. Don't bother dragging me into your fallacious argument." No obligation to the foetus? There is something seriously wrong with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For a society, swingers, that would be judged by many to have low morals, it is extremely moralistic on many subjects. Rightly or wrongly." That's irrelevant though. A person exercising their logic and rational mind to determine that good of an action is not making a claim that all their actions are good. A murderer can still objectivly claim it's wrong to steal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For a society, swingers, that would be judged by many to have low morals, it is extremely moralistic on many subjects. Rightly or wrongly. That's irrelevant though. A person exercising their logic and rational mind to determine that good of an action is not making a claim that all their actions are good. A murderer can still objectivly claim it's wrong to steal. " But it could be said that a murderer has stolen someones life. Rightly or wrongly. One person's moral..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For a society, swingers, that would be judged by many to have low morals, it is extremely moralistic on many subjects. Rightly or wrongly. That's irrelevant though. A person exercising their logic and rational mind to determine that good of an action is not making a claim that all their actions are good. A murderer can still objectivly claim it's wrong to steal. But it could be said that a murderer has stolen someones life. Rightly or wrongly. One person's moral....." No that's just semantic bullshit. Not to mention the fact that a thief can still objectively determine that stealing is wrong. People can and do, commit acts they rationally know to be immoral. Morals are not random. There are really only a handful of consistent moral frameworks. None of which would say a mothers instant gratification is more important than a babies health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I find it a bit weird to think a man would want to sleep with a lady who wasn't pregnant by them. I don't know why. Im not sure I would be able to personally, sort of feels like a time to close ranks. " Agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I personally think a woman should be able to put her sexual urges aside and concentrate on her unborn baby. If she's that horny she can self satisfy with toys. That's what I did through my pregnancy as I was single for the last 7 months of it. Sleeping with multiple random men whilst pregnant just doesn't sit right with me. " It doesn’t with me either. Interesting reading. Same old each to their own applies but was surprised at most of the comments here to be honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. Don't bother dragging me into your fallacious argument. No obligation to the foetus? There is something seriously wrong with you." You just don't think the pregnant woman is important and should lose her autonomy by force and not by choice. Do you have any idea why women stayed in abusive relationships because society told them they should do that? Bring up their kids in that environment? Yeah they we're forced to lose their autonomy. Just coz one pregnant woman is fucking the whole site all pregnant women should lose their autonomy? Lol. Nobody even puts these arguments into a realistic frame, you all think emotionally and that is why the argument is invalid. And no, no woman has to give up anything just because she is carrying a foetus. You can't force people to do things against their will and you have to leave people to do the lame shit that they do coz it's their life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. Don't bother dragging me into your fallacious argument. No obligation to the foetus? There is something seriously wrong with you. You just don't think the pregnant woman is important and should lose her autonomy by force and not by choice. Do you have any idea why women stayed in abusive relationships because society told them they should do that? Bring up their kids in that environment? Yeah they we're forced to lose their autonomy. Just coz one pregnant woman is fucking the whole site all pregnant women should lose their autonomy? Lol. Nobody even puts these arguments into a realistic frame, you all think emotionally and that is why the argument is invalid. And no, no woman has to give up anything just because she is carrying a foetus. You can't force people to do things against their will and you have to leave people to do the lame shit that they do coz it's their life. " You clearly have an axe to grind and are unwilling, or incapable, or both, of stringing together any kind of coherent argument without randomly ascribing views to others . But just to repeat - if you think that an expectant mother bears no responsibility to her unborn child as a given - then there is something fundamentally missing from your value system and I feel sorry for you. Even animals don’t act in that way. That is solely in answer to that specific point made by you. As to the original question, my view is that whilst of course the woman can do as she pleases, I don’t think it is a good idea for the very many good reasons expressed by by others above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. Don't bother dragging me into your fallacious argument. No obligation to the foetus? There is something seriously wrong with you. You just don't think the pregnant woman is important and should lose her autonomy by force and not by choice. Do you have any idea why women stayed in abusive relationships because society told them they should do that? Bring up their kids in that environment? Yeah they we're forced to lose their autonomy. Just coz one pregnant woman is fucking the whole site all pregnant women should lose their autonomy? Lol. Nobody even puts these arguments into a realistic frame, you all think emotionally and that is why the argument is invalid. And no, no woman has to give up anything just because she is carrying a foetus. You can't force people to do things against their will and you have to leave people to do the lame shit that they do coz it's their life. You clearly have an axe to grind and are unwilling, or incapable, or both, of stringing together any kind of coherent argument without randomly ascribing views to others . But just to repeat - if you think that an expectant mother bears no responsibility to her unborn child as a given - then there is something fundamentally missing from your value system and I feel sorry for you. Even animals don’t act in that way. That is solely in answer to that specific point made by you. As to the original question, my view is that whilst of course the woman can do as she pleases, I don’t think it is a good idea for the very many good reasons expressed by by others above. " I've left my personal morals put of the argument because they are irrelevant to it, my personal morals are not being forced onto anyone so why bring them up? But thanks for agreeing that she has autonomy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"even if she is barebacking syphilis riddled rugby teams in one sitting, then it is still no one elses business. She should take care of herself and her child, thats a given. " Yeah of course because she is autonomous and should be able to do what she wants I suppose! Of course it’s someone else’s business. What about the father? This isn’t a question of autonomy this is a question of morals. Sorry but any woman who would do what you just said (although I hope this would be highly unlikely!) doesn’t deserve children in my book. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"even if she is barebacking syphilis riddled rugby teams in one sitting, then it is still no one elses business. She should take care of herself and her child, thats a given. Yeah of course because she is autonomous and should be able to do what she wants I suppose! Of course it’s someone else’s business. What about the father? This isn’t a question of autonomy this is a question of morals. Sorry but any woman who would do what you just said (although I hope this would be highly unlikely!) doesn’t deserve children in my book. " As i said, I saw one this year on fab and those guys had worse than syphilis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"even if she is barebacking syphilis riddled rugby teams in one sitting, then it is still no one elses business. She should take care of herself and her child, thats a given. Yeah of course because she is autonomous and should be able to do what she wants I suppose! Of course it’s someone else’s business. What about the father? This isn’t a question of autonomy this is a question of morals. Sorry but any woman who would do what you just said (although I hope this would be highly unlikely!) doesn’t deserve children in my book. As i said, I saw one this year on fab and those guys had worse than syphilis. " Yeah I saw that. Disgusting. Never thought these words would ever come out of my mouth but I’ve actually agreed with most of what you’ve said after reading through this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"even if she is barebacking syphilis riddled rugby teams in one sitting, then it is still no one elses business. She should take care of herself and her child, thats a given. Yeah of course because she is autonomous and should be able to do what she wants I suppose! Of course it’s someone else’s business. What about the father? This isn’t a question of autonomy this is a question of morals. Sorry but any woman who would do what you just said (although I hope this would be highly unlikely!) doesn’t deserve children in my book. As i said, I saw one this year on fab and those guys had worse than syphilis. Yeah I saw that. Disgusting. Never thought these words would ever come out of my mouth but I’ve actually agreed with most of what you’ve said after reading through this " Broken clocks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Is it worse than smoking and drinking while pregnant? Plenty do that.." I know and that’s wrong too in my opinion. Having sex with different men whilst pregnant is fine. Not something I’d do though. Putting the life of your unborn child at risk in any shape or form is not fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Is it worse than smoking and drinking while pregnant? Plenty do that.." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Is it worse than smoking and drinking while pregnant? Plenty do that.. " To be fair though this thread has veered away from the original question long ago. In answer to the ops question it’s not something I’d do but I don’t see why not if it’s safe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Is it worse than smoking and drinking while pregnant? Plenty do that.." yes we all know some women smoke and drink and we all should that they shouldn't but as smoking is an addiction I can really understand why its hard to stop smoking whist pregnant by what you've said correct me if I'm wrong your looking at the health risks and not at the moral issues can i safely say they're are health and moral sides to this I suppose as the mother of an unborn child you have to way things up and make what hopefully will be a sensible decision and not a selfish one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Is it worse than smoking and drinking while pregnant? Plenty do that.. To be fair though this thread has veered away from the original question long ago. In answer to the ops question it’s not something I’d do but I don’t see why not if it’s safe. " True. And I agree. If I were pregnant I personally don’t think I would be having casual sex strangers, but I can’t see why others shouldn’t! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Yes. Why not. say if your ex was sleeping wit a pregnant woman you found out he'd met on fab wud u be happy " Sorry but he's your ex, what has it got to do with you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People still think in this day and age it's ok to remove autonomy from pregnant women. don't you think some people need help Maybe some do if they want to change, but otherwise women are allowed autonomy, pregnant or not. It's her body, her pregnancy, and she has to deal with the consequences of anything that arises due to her choices, but they're her choices to make. No, the baby deals with the consequences. That's the moral problem. There is no moral problem. right now the law supports her pregnant body being autonomous.What's the law got to do with it common sense prevails Laws tend to support the morals of the majority of a society. Absolute nonsense. There is no moral code that would prioritise unprotect casual sex over the health risks to the baby, it's simply people acting immorally. Law and moral are different, that's kind of like what most people learn as teenagers. There's no law saying it's illegal. If it was of such moral outrage there would be one by now, but there isn't. Btw in case you didn't realise i support autonomy and the non-pushing of ideals onto others so you're arguing with a brick wall basically. Sorry but your logic is embarassing. The truly hideous face of radical feminism. You being pushy is hideous. The logic is that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. Her body is still hers even when she is pregnant. She has no obligation to the foetus growing inside whatsoever,and that's the law. Once a baby is born then others can intervene because it isn't dependent on her but until then no you can't in any way, shape or form because she (pregnant woman) has autonomy.think about what you are saying " she has no obligation to that baby" she's that babies mother forever Pushing morals on other people is inherently wrong too. Apparently. If I feel like murdering someone then I fucking well will thank you, don't need anyone limiting my autonomy. one more on the list of traits on how to spot a Psychopath number 8 if a person says if I feel like I want to kill sumone I fucking will lol Given that a psychopath is someone with impaired or zero empathy or remorse. Then I'd say that you need look no further than people who say unprotected sex, drugs and smoking are more important than the health of a baby. Don't bother dragging me into your fallacious argument. No obligation to the foetus? There is something seriously wrong with you. You just don't think the pregnant woman is important and should lose her autonomy by force and not by choice. Do you have any idea why women stayed in abusive relationships because society told them they should do that? Bring up their kids in that environment? Yeah they we're forced to lose their autonomy. Just coz one pregnant woman is fucking the whole site all pregnant women should lose their autonomy? Lol. Nobody even puts these arguments into a realistic frame, you all think emotionally and that is why the argument is invalid. And no, no woman has to give up anything just because she is carrying a foetus. You can't force people to do things against their will and you have to leave people to do the lame shit that they do coz it's their life. You clearly have an axe to grind and are unwilling, or incapable, or both, of stringing together any kind of coherent argument without randomly ascribing views to others . But just to repeat - if you think that an expectant mother bears no responsibility to her unborn child as a given - then there is something fundamentally missing from your value system and I feel sorry for you. Even animals don’t act in that way. That is solely in answer to that specific point made by you. As to the original question, my view is that whilst of course the woman can do as she pleases, I don’t think it is a good idea for the very many good reasons expressed by by others above. I've left my personal morals put of the argument because they are irrelevant to it, my personal morals are not being forced onto anyone so why bring them up? But thanks for agreeing that she has autonomy. " Ok answer me this then if you would on the whole “her autonomy” subject. If it’s her choice should she be able to do whatever she wants and go with as many guys as she wants bareback or not? Also do you think the father of that unborn child should accept this and have no say in the matter if he’s not happy for her to do so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The question says more about the OP than it does about pregnant women. Not doing yourself any favours there mate! " just want to say a big ty for your contribution they're u have it people subject sorted lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Ok reviewed answer. If she's having random sex with lots of different people then no,if it's one regular man then that's ok. That may not make sense to myself also,but there you go." Why? What difference does it make? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t understand all of the ‘it’s none of our business’ replies? We have been asked our opinions and I’m happy to give mine. I’m not directly interfering in a persons life! My opinion is that it’s wrong because in MY world, children should be raised in a stable relationship and not use somebody as a sperm donor. This is a simplistic opinion however." Did you read the question right? So if a woman get a pregnant by a long term partner and is left, for whatever reason. She shouldn't be allowed to go out and have sex? Not sure where the "sperm donor" bit comes into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t understand all of the ‘it’s none of our business’ replies? We have been asked our opinions and I’m happy to give mine. I’m not directly interfering in a persons life! My opinion is that it’s wrong because in MY world, children should be raised in a stable relationship and not use somebody as a sperm donor. This is a simplistic opinion however.yes and stay together as a family unit and weather the storms of life Apparently I’ve stepped through a time portal to the mid-60’s What if a happily married expecting couple are Swingers & choose to continue meeting during the pregnancy? No one is saying that this pregnant woman has walked out on the father to pursue a life of hedonism Swinging & being a loving family unit are not mutually exclusive. A woman - any woman - has the right to decide what she should or shouldn’t do with her body, regardless of pregnancy." You should know by now, there is only one way to do swinging. And that's the way of the person making a post. There is very little leeway in this. Do it any other way than theirs and your morals, judgment and mental health are all, questioned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"should people comment on weather pregnant or bi or gay etc... have sex with others , unless it effects them personally? just debating if it comes across aggressive., it's not ment to. x" What would be the logic of not commenting on things that don't directly effect you personally? I mean am i rationally incapable at looking at the north Korean government and saying I think they are morally reprehensible, just because it doesn't effect me? Our whole legal system is based on the idea that people not directly effected, make better judgements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Ok reviewed answer. If she's having random sex with lots of different people then no,if it's one regular man then that's ok. That may not make sense to myself also,but there you go. Why? What difference does it make? " I think she means the less men she sleeps with the less danger to the pregnant woman and her unborn child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"To the people who are just to comment on this subject may I suggest u go right bk to the very top of this very long thread and read what has been a lot of good constructive adult comments and then make a constructive comment and not a spur of the hip one if you have read the entire thread gawd u deserve a meadle hats of to ya and loads of respect sent" ment medal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Isn't it up to the single pregnant woman who she should sleep with" Exactly, I have always viewed this lifestyle as being about you have sex with whoever you want to in whatever way you want as long as all of you are consenting adults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is my personnel view me personally I think its quite freaky that a man wud knowingly sleep with a a woman bearing the unborn child of another man and and here's a thought and its only a thought how do you think the farther of that child would feel if he found out that his ex the mother of his unborn child was sleeping with a man shed met on fab mmm now theyres food is it a case of a lack of empathy for the farther look I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just asking for peoples opinions on the subject and this is my final comment on the subject to the men out they're who wud sleep wit a woman who was pregnant how wud u feel if it was your pregnant ex just place yourself in to that situation cause as the farther of a beautiful eighteen yr old girl I'd be far from happy and so they're you have it " once again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"After all I've read today my personnel opinion and its just my opinion so whether u agree or not that's your choice personally I don't agree that pregnant women should sleep wit men from fab or any were else for that matter I think they're is health and moral grounds as well as the feelings of the unborn babies farther which I think should be taken into consideration but to keep things balanced I believe that its the women's choice like I've said before hopefully she,ll way everythink up and make what Eva she feels right for her and the unborn child but when she makes that decision it won't be a selfish one love sent to you all stay strong stay safe" once again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |