That's also a religious belief.
Marriage is a universal concept and has been seen in all cultures throughout human history in some form.
Religion has nothing to do with a woman demanding an obligation - be it societal or legal - from a man before engaging in sexual activity with him - because she incurs the majority of the risk of that activity.
Even though the exact definition of marriage varies from culture to culture - and over time - the foundation of marriage has been to protect women and children.
Women should do as their consciences direct them, not as a holy book or a religion directs them.
Yes and No.
Of course, everyone is free to follow their conscience - but they should always temper their conscience with knowledge, maturity and experience.
This is why societies throughout history have often restricted the free will of children - because even though they have a conscience - they lack the knowledge, maturity and experience needed to judge the risk of any decision.
Adults - men and women - should also be judging available information in order to make rational and reasonable decisions.
Sexual activity leads to children - therefore - women should safeguard themselves from potential abuse and rejection by formalizing their union with the man who wants to have sexual activity with them.
Sex is rarely about having children.
I did not claim that the motivation for sex - or even marriage - was about having children.
What I said was, "I would claim that women should stop having sex entirely until they are married and ready to have children."
Meaning - no one should have sex unless they are ready for the possibility of children - because sex leads to children.
And no woman should consider having sex - opening themselves up to that amount of risk - without safeguards and assurances.
It's like saying, "No one should start a fire without first being ready for the possibility that the fire could spread."
We have the right to decide what we want to do with our lives - but wisdom dictates that we prepare ourselves adequately before engaging in risky behavior - because we can harm ourselves and others.
For those fire-starters - its having a fire extinguisher nearby - for those women who want to have sex - its marriage.
There is no virtue in abstinence for its own sake.
What are you even talking about?
People who are not ready to have children should not be engaging in sexual activity - since sexual activity leads to children.
This concept applies to all consequences of activities that a person is not ready to accept.
When one is ready for a Personal accountability doesn't include being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to satisfy the desires of others.
Personal accountability is a measure of the capacity to be answerable for personal actions.
Murdering one's child because they are inconvenient is a person not being accountable for their actions.
And not allowing a mother to murder her not-yet-born child is not "forcing" anything on anyone.
Women in this country have been "privileged" to have the authority to decide which of their not-yet-born children live or die - but that is a "privilege" - not a right - and taking this "privilege" away is not discrimination or "forcing" anything upon any woman.
Murdering one's not-yet-born child is a "forcible act" though.
Awareness of self and ones surrounding. In this matter, it also includes the ability to suffer.
How is it determined?
That is not among the reasons. Not caring what others want them to do is, however.
Regardless - you still don't want these women to know all of their options or to be equipped with all relevant information.
I think it is interesting that you consider this whole "not caring what others want them to do" thing to be such a virtue when a woman wants to murder her not-yet-born child - but you would probably think differently if it were about someone's "preferred pronoun".
I don't know anybody objecting to the term abortion, and once again, what others want pregnant women to think about is not relevant.
Many people object to the term - because it is an attempt to obfuscate what is happening - the murder of a not-yet-born child.
Women consider murdering their not-yet-born children because they are scared, desperate or angry - and only a fanatical idealogue would tell these women to act based solely on those emotions - without considering all available options and relevant information.
You're like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi - "Good - give into your [fear], [desperation], [anger] - and strike down the innocent human being that you created. Absolve yourself of all personal accountability. Ignore facts about children in the womb. Don't consider any other option. Give in to the Dark Side!"
Demanded? You have no standing to demand anything in this matter.
Yes - I do.
I demand that all doctors graduate from medical school before they get their medical license.
I demand that all police officers undergo training and graduate before getting their badges.
I demand that all criminals be convicted of their crimes by means of a fair trial before they are executed.
I demand that all women be informed about all available options and all relevant information before they decide to murder their not-yet-born children.
Only a fearmonger - a rabble-rouser - demagogue - propagandist - or liar would push for people to make life-changing decisions without taking all this into account and pondering on the decision before they make them.
You don't seem to understand that you are not a part of the decision others make for themselves.
Every member of society plays a small part in every decision every other member of society makes.
Your sensibilities are not part of her equation.
I wonder if you would apply this standard to anyone else besides women who are considering murdering her not-yet-born children.
It's like you telling others what not to eat based on what tastes good to you.
So - you are against vegetarians and vegans telling other people that "Meat is murder"?
They shouldn't be allowed to share their opinion?
Here you go again telling others how they should live.
You don't seem to understand how conversations work.
Another RF member asked me a question - requesting to know my opinion on this subject - and I obliged them.
You seem to believe that me sharing my opinion with someone who asked me to share it is somehow "telling others how they should live" - why is that?
Also - aren't all your comments directed at me - telling me what I should and should not do - you telling me "how I should live"?
You come by it honestly, however.
I do - I value honesty - unlike "pro-choice" activists.
You want all women to be in the dark about what options they have and about what is in their womb - while I want them to know everything.
Because I'm honest.
It's pretty much what religion is, isn't it? After a few decades of hearing thou shalts coming from the pulpit, it's probably hard to resist doing it yourself.
We are all products of what we consume.
I want light and life - while you seem to want darkness and death - because of what we have decided to consume.
