A post over at Dawn Eden’s anti-choice-to-the-extreme blog has generated a lot of interesting comments — and helped me to further understand the complete disconnect between the anti-choice/anti-sex crowd and the pro-choice/sex-positive group.
Contracepting couples are denying the life-giving aspect of themselves, rendering their copulation as sterile as masturbation. Oh, heck, it feels good, and it’s a bonding experience, but it is not the total selfless giving of a totally open conjugal union.
So if you don’t want to get pregnant, you’re using your partner as a vibrator. This is doubly insulting, since we all know that masturbation is evil.
My question is, wouldn’t this logic make sex-for-baby-making equally bad? Because if you’re only doing it for the purpose of getting pregnant because you want a child, you’re not exactly being totally selfless, are you?
The avoidance of death does not justify immoral actions when there are other ways of getting around it. IF a woman gets pregnant, her life MIGHT be in peril, ASSUMING there is nothing surgery can do to save her. I suppose continence would be irresponsible. It IS irresponsible for a man to get a vasectomy even here, because his wife might die for just about any reason at any time. Vasectomy might save a man from an infection, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to keep someone else from dying. He might want to re-marry, especially if they had young children, and he and his new wife might want to have children.
I don’t think it’s wonderful for a man to have a vasectomy and reverse it all in honor of a woman. I think it’s sick, and it reminds me of the practice of wives jumping on the husband’s funeral pyre. In a way the very notion of a marriage vow shows you love something more than husband or wife, or what would you be swearing by? Even marital love has definite limitations, and some which people might actually not want.
Limitations of marriage: using contraceptives or getting a vastectomy to prevent your wife’s death from pregnancy complications. Because, hey, she might die anyway! And then you might have to get your vastectomy reversed so that you can impregnate your new wife, who you will certainly need to marry ASAP if you have young children from Dead Wife 1 (it’s not like you can be expected to care for them). And doing things to save your wife’s life may be construed as actually “honoring” her, and that’s just sick.
My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it. Vasectomies and contraception are not necessary because it is not necessary that even married people have sex.
To clarify, this guy is responding to a woman who said that she would likely die from another pregnancy, and so her husband had a vastecomy. They are both, apparently, selfish heathens who should just give up sex entirely.
Similar Posts (automatically generated):
- Choice for the Kids by Jill April 24, 2006
- Shorter Dawn Eden: Chill out, ladies, you’ve got all the silly rights you need! by Jill October 4, 2006
- Converts’ Zeal by zuzu April 25, 2006
- On Helping Women by Jill December 15, 2005
- Powerful Words by Jill September 12, 2006