One comment

I was going to say "no comment" but I have too big of a mouth. You can play along, Where's Waldo? style, and find the logical flaws in this essay from the SBC Baptist Press News, which is largely a response to my "I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck" column and gives me a kindof backhanded compliment of acknowledging that abortion does, in fact, happen because of sex. I didn't have room to go into every nuance of my argument, but it should be clear from that column alone that I am not advocating rampant unprotected sex. I still do not see how one goes from procreation being a natural (and I would say "natural") result of sex (which he does not define) to meaning that every woman who has heterosexual, procreative sex should then automatically want to be pregant. He's basically saying you should be having sex to have kids, and if you get some pleasure thrown in, good for you, when I would venture to guess that most people not actively trying to get pregnant through sex would claim that pleasure as a good in and of itself. But it's not an either/or proposition here people-either have pleasure or have kids. And, hello, the birth control pill, condoms, are but the most recent incarnations of contraception, which people have been using for a hell of a long time.

I can much more easily understand (not necessarily agree with) someone being against abortion, but to basically be saying you're against sex without conception does not make sense to me at all. Okay, my one comment is threatening to become many, and I think you can just read for yourselves.

No doubt sex is pleasurable; however, pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex. It is not just something to engage in when bored, curious or seeking pleasure. If the primary purpose of sex was anything other than procreation, pregnancy would not be the result.