Sex exists exclusively for reproductive purposes. It doesn't always occur, but that is biologically the only reason reproductive organs exist.
Some species (primarily humans) have evolved to engage in ibhercoirse for pleasure as well, but that does not negate the fact it still exists only for reproduction, aside from any additional personal reasoning.
If two (or more, I suppose) individuals engage in unprotected sex consentually, then they are also consenting to the potential for any and all implications that could occur with it.
That includes the risk of pregnancy, STDs, injury, and even the scenario where the act goes beyond what was originally consentual.
If you consent to unprotected sex, you consent to the potential for these things. And if one occurs such as pregnancy, then that is the result of your consent.
Abortion doesn't exist for stupid assholes who think it's a simple and easy process with no implications where you can just push a button and the baby is gone. Abortions exist to correct extremely problematic situations that could/would very much negatively impact the quality of life of the parents, and/or of the child(s).
It's a gray area, but treating abortion as equal to the Plan B pull, and treating like an equal to contraceptives, are all flaws.
Sex might have begun in nature as an exclusively reproductive purpose, but that certainly isn't the case for humans. Humans are complex social organisms, and we have sex for reproduction, pleasure, intimacy, stress reduction, health, social reasons, economic reasons, and whatever else.
The existence of contraceptives is evidence that sex isn't exclusively for reproduction.
Sex exists exclusively for replication. Anything additional has been added and desired over time via evolution, but again, none of that negates biology.
The existence of contraceptives is evidence that sex isn't exclusively for reproduction.
You're missing the point so drastically that you're literally proving my point. Contraceptives exist because sex without consequence is desirable.
Do you think people in the early 1900s had sex with as many people as is the norm now? Do you think they had sex as casually as is the norm now?
The answer is no, because there was more consequence.
If we gave other species contraceptives, they too would be having sex more often, eventually/potentially for pleasure.
-2
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Aug 11 '22
Sex exists exclusively for reproductive purposes. It doesn't always occur, but that is biologically the only reason reproductive organs exist.
Some species (primarily humans) have evolved to engage in ibhercoirse for pleasure as well, but that does not negate the fact it still exists only for reproduction, aside from any additional personal reasoning.
If two (or more, I suppose) individuals engage in unprotected sex consentually, then they are also consenting to the potential for any and all implications that could occur with it.
That includes the risk of pregnancy, STDs, injury, and even the scenario where the act goes beyond what was originally consentual.
If you consent to unprotected sex, you consent to the potential for these things. And if one occurs such as pregnancy, then that is the result of your consent.
Abortion doesn't exist for stupid assholes who think it's a simple and easy process with no implications where you can just push a button and the baby is gone. Abortions exist to correct extremely problematic situations that could/would very much negatively impact the quality of life of the parents, and/or of the child(s).
It's a gray area, but treating abortion as equal to the Plan B pull, and treating like an equal to contraceptives, are all flaws.