zlacker

> forced into viewing sex as inherently risky

I don't understand what you mean by "forced" and "inherently risky". What risks are you talking about? Sex isn't ever "inherently risky" and I don't know anyone who would reason like that if they just thought about it for a few moments. There are circumstances and behaviors which may increase risk of certain outcomes when having sex. There is nothing "inherent" about these elements. You don't make any sense.

Sex is inherently exciting, enjoyable, holy, and very good. Sex is designed that way so that humans and other creatures will engage in it often. Christians understand this, and we promote that view.

Your comments draw a bleak landscape of discord and strife over sex, and nobody wants that. We want a Culture of Life, where human dignity is respected and upheld at every stage of life, for every person, equally.

>>NoZebr+(OP)
If you were responding in good faith you would respond to my full post, instead of part of a single sentence, where many of the risk without abortion and contraceptive access are listed.

Edit: It's also poor form to stealthily edit your comment after someone has already replied to it and you've been down voted for it.

>>Larrik+s1
Well you're not posting in good faith; it's evident from your using emotive false equivalencies like "forced" and "inherently risky". If you weren't starting from false premises then we may have a chance at honest debate.

>>NoZebr+(OP)
> What risks are you talking about? Sex isn't ever "inherently risky"

Sex is very often inherently risky. Before protection became commonplace it was almost always inherently risky.

You seemed to be disappointed in the “widespread use of contraception” in your original post - without contraception there’s even more risk.