I Guess No One Cares.

   Some people take more risk, some people prefer to take less risk.  As long as the people who take risks understand that they are responsible for what happens, that's usually fine enough.  If you gamble and lose you should not expect to just wipe the board clean and start all over by getting an abortion.  Creating human life means being responsible for it.

   If it appears you are not responsible because of the actions of a criminal then that would indeed be different.

Well good on you. And you're right--the bringing of another life into the world is a serious matter, and all the more reason why shortsighted laws that would force the unprepared to do so should never be enacted.

By the way, 'babykins'--I also have the intelligence and skills to 'generate the gelt' as you so tactfully put it. I also chose not to have children as I felt I was not parenting material, and decided not to put my uncertainties to the test on a young life. But I didn't keep my knees together as an adult, and would never counsel another adult to the practice of unwilling abstinence as any manner of sensible birth control. That it worked for you--for whatever reason--is fine, but an attempt to impose your personal moral stance on the rest of we frail mortals is arrogant at best, and foolishly doomed to failure under any circumstances.

You attempt the usual virtue-signaller's ploy of implying that any and all who disagree with your stance are moral idiots who can't conceive (pardon the pun) of the idea of avoiding 'irresponsible behavior'. Avoidance is always best, but life is not perfect, and no adult should be forced to 'avoid' responding to normal human drives for physical intimacy.

I'm going to make a personal reveal here; all things considered, for whatever the risk, I feel it's worth taking.

I have had an abortion.

Twenty years ago (I was 33 at the time), I was in a relationship which neither was prepared to take into a lifetime commitment. Realizing this, I was very careful to use proper and effective contraception, in this case oral contraceptives, i.e. The Pill.

The Pill has an effectiveness rate of approximately 98%. However, as in all things human, it is not totally foolproof and can fail. In my case I was one of the 2% where this happened.

I was told by my gynecologist that the risks of either a dangerous miscarriage or almost certain horrific physical defect to the fetus was pretty much a certainty. As I had no wish to subject a child to such a fate, I chose to abort the pregnancy. I have never regretted doing so, nor did I regret it at the time, though it was a sad decision to have to make.

Now, to a highly moral sort such as yourself, no doubt I was an irresponsible slut who failed to use the backup method of a chastity belt to prevent unplanned pregnancy, and thus should have been forced to bear the burden of my wanton behaviors in the form of a terribly deformed child. Of course, were I to be so morally weak as to have this burden be too much for me, I could always place the child (assuming it lived) with one of those adoption agencies that specialize in placing badly handicapped children with one of those thousands of couples who are eagerly seeking to adopt such a child. And of course, I could have assumed the financial responsibility for it in any case, as further punishment for my crime, as you state.

To this, I say: what a self-righteous clown you are. You know nothing--NOTHING--about what is involved in any instance of any woman's choice to abort. Yet you sit on your moral high ground, presuming 'could' and 'should' to those same women. You lecture about 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' behaviors as if you knew anything whatsoever about the background of any of these situations; it's a pity that some manner of legal penalties can't be applied to that sort of high-handed and ignorant judgementalism, but alas, not only are there none, it would seem we live in a society which crowns blowhard know-nothingness such as you display with the laurel wreath of supposed virtue.

But it's safe to say that your virtue is probably as hollow as your knowledge, and likely as poor and mean as your shriveled sense of compassion.

Your post is a marvellously disgusting reveal of your own personality, nothing more. As such, I leave it to stand for others to judge without further comment.

People should have the right to have sex without being burdened by having to support another life in case the condom breaks, and also there is the case of women who did not invite risk upon themselves and were sexually violated.

Having the child, especially if not even wanted and you are unable to support it, is not a responsible act at all. The responsible act would be not to impose risk on someone who cannot consent to the terms of the risk.

I think Arlon inadvertently gives a pretty good reveal into his general mindset via the inference that sexual activity is a 'right' that should be granted only after the participants' motives have been thoroughly vetted (by himself, perhaps?) and weighed according to the level of 'responsibility' those motives demonstrate. The 'responsibility' of course, would involve proving that any and all sexual activity is to be for procreative purposes only, no deviations from this allowed. The pity is, Arlon can't be honest enough to openly state this, in large measure because he realizes that his stance is Neanderthalian enough to get him laughed off of any conversation taking place amongst those who have evolved above the level of agitating to bring back laws allowing for public witch burnings.

The answer to this is that an unwanted child, perhaps born into poverty and neglect, born after rape or abuse, or one with a limiting congenital disease easily noted in the womb, might well wish they weren't born in the first place.