TheImpossible1
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (141)
sorted by:
If you insist on looking it as merely transactional, then they are providing sex, and possibly, exclusive sex (in commited relationships). Most would reckon that very valuable.
I also challenge the risk is low. It is among the greater of risks among drugs. And for no medical benefit. They in fact are reproductive poisons. The same "benefit" (non conception of children) can be achieved with barrier methods (no side effects) or abstinence (no side effects).
Hundreds if not thousands. Only a tiny number get reported, they rest are just random strokes or whatever. Big pharma needs its money. Still though, any risk is too much when risk free avenues exist.
You are right that sex itself isn't that valuable, which would make me think you more amenable to abstinence. But children are valuable. And no amount of money can buy you one. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Sex requires two people. How is that zero contribution? And furthermore, abstinence is a two way street as well. Seems fair to me. Both partners fertile. Both don't want baby. Both don't have sex.
Same ethics with a condom. Both fertile, both don't want baby, both have a dimished sex act with a barrier between them. I've never used a condom so I am assuming about equal diminishment of the act for the man and woman.
What you propose is women shoulder all the risk of harm for the same benefits while the man assumes no risk.