BK's actings explained

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 15:55

That, to me, is the coldest statement I've ever heard.

Why?

Maybe when you find a girl, fall in love and get married, you'll change your opinion.

So what you're saying is I should take one for the team and get a vasectomy, eh?

I would never risk my wife's live when there are ways to avoid it that provided better odds.

And what, exactly, are the odds here? If you wanted a solution that had no risk whatsoever - you'd choose abstinence for the rest of your life. Are you telling me in this situation you'd choose abstinence, over tubal litigation?

For you to choose religious beliefs over the life of your spouse demonstrates how little you will value your spouse. Which is not surprising considering how little the church values women.

Fine then, tell me the decision that you would make that demonstrates just how much you love your wife.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 15:56

It wouldn't be Ben's decision to make. In fact the notion of Ben telling her "I want sex but no contraceptives whatsoever even though pregnancy has a substantial risk of killing you" is absurd.

So contraceptives have a 100 percent success rate?

rah · July 17, 2012, 16:02

Fine then, tell me the decision that you would make that demonstrates just how much you love your wife

Whatever it takes.
I'd probably get the darn vasectomy, use another form of contraceptive and practice a version of rhythm on top of it, to get the odds to as close to zero as possible.
And if she did get pregnant i wouldn't hold it against her if she chose to abort but i'd support whatever decision she made. While I'm not a fan of abortion, I am a big fan of CHOICE. Especially for the woman who's body is impacted.
Obviously, I'd be willing to do considerably more than you to protect my wife.

Does that answer your question?

gribbler · July 17, 2012, 16:03

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

So contraceptives have a 100 percent success rate?

They have a much higher success rate than not having contraceptives.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 16:10

Whatever it takes.

Even at the cost of the life of your child. I see.

I'd probably get the darn vasectomy, use another form of contraceptive and practice a version of rhythm on top of it, to get the odds to as close to zero as possible.

But you'd still not choose the one option that had zero risk to it. Why is that, rah? You're doing risk management here - just trying to add another zero on the end.

While I'm not a fan of abortion, I am a big fan of CHOICE. Especially for the woman who's body is impacted.

Obviously not, because you don't believe your child should have a choice.

I'd be willing to do considerably more than you to protect my wife.

I wonder how it is that I knew you weren't going to say, "abstain forever."

Yes, you are willing to do considerably more, even going so far as to kill your children. But it's a good thing you'd 'leave the decision up to her', like a real man.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 16:11

They have a much higher success rate than not having contraceptives.

Would you put the life of someone you love on contraceptives?

rah · July 17, 2012, 16:20

I think our posts show that I would do considerably more to save my wife. I'm on record that I would do more up front to actually avoid the pregnancy than you would. Which was my point. Which you ignore since it shoots your argument to pieces. You would only do one option, I would do all three.

And if there was a pregnancy,
You fall back on some undefined and imaginary third way.

Neither, I'd take a third option and do what I can to save the life of both my child and my wife.

What is that THIRD OPTION?
What if that's not possible? Be a man and choose who to save.

gribbler · July 17, 2012, 16:25

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

Would you put the life of someone you love on contraceptives?

Would make more sense than not using contraceptives. If it makes sense to have sex only at certain times of the month, it makes more sense to have sex at certain times of the month while wearing a condom, or while she's taking the pill. Or even get a vasectomy. It's her life, whatever level of protection she feels is warranted. Although I don't personally have an issue with abortion.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 16:29

Would make more sense than not using contraceptives.

So the answer to that is yes.

If it makes sense to have sex only at certain times of the month, it makes more sense to have sex at certain times of the month while wearing a condom, or while she's taking the pill. Or even get a vasectomy.

True, for you, sure, but not for me. It makes more sense to me to just not have sex at all than to have contraceptive sex.

It's her life, whatever level of protection she feels is warranted.

Would you stay with her if she said no sex at all, or would you seek greener pastures.

rah · July 17, 2012, 16:31

And I'm not even going to go into Ben's saying that for Catholics, the only reason for marriage and sex is procreation, (a convenient argument why Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry) but then provide the loophole that it's OK to practice versions of rhythm. SO it's OK for catholic couples to marry and have sex without any desire to have children.

gribbler · July 17, 2012, 16:33

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

So the answer to that is yes.

True, for you, sure, but not for me. It makes more sense to me to just not have sex at all than to have contraceptive sex.

Would you stay with her if she said no sex at all, or would you seek greener pastures.

If I was married and she didn't want sex because of a medical condition, I would live with it.

rah · July 17, 2012, 16:33

Would you stay with her if she said no sex at all, or would you seek greener pastures.

At my age, I would continue to want my wife's friendship and love over sex. I can't answer for younger men.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 16:34

You would only do one option, I would do all three.

There's four options here - rah. Have you forgotten?

You fall back on some undefined and imaginary third way.

Name me a medical condition that would make it 100 percent chance of you dying if you got pregnant.

What is that THIRD OPTION?

C-section delivery.

What if that's not possible?

As far as I'm aware there's only one case where that would occur, and that would be an ectopic pregnancy, in which case the answer would be to save the life of my wife since we couldn't save the baby.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 16:37

At my age, I would continue to want my wife's friendship and love over sex. I can't answer for younger men.

It's a harder decision, especially if you don't have kids and wanted to have kids together. I wouldn't like it, (remember it would mean for me, since I would be waiting until marriage!), but we'd probably look at adoption. If I can't have my own then I'd raise some with her.

rah · July 17, 2012, 16:40

Oh ben knows everything about medicine. Survival of a C-section delivery is not 100% NOTHING IN LIFE IS 100% except death.

But step up here and answer the question. If you had to choose over your wife and an unborn baby, what would you choose? You seem to be saying that you'd do nothing and let god make the decision.

For me, I'd choose my wife every time. If you think that makes me evil, I guess I'm evil. And I can live with that.

rah · July 17, 2012, 16:43

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

It's a harder decision, especially if you don't have kids and wanted to have kids together. I wouldn't like it, (remember it would mean for me, since I would be waiting until marriage!), but we'd probably look at adoption. If I can't have my own then I'd raise some with her.

I still see no decision. I wouldn't over risk my wife's life to satisfy a selfish need to father a child. (granted all childbirth are not survived)

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 17, 2012, 16:54

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

Why?

So what you're saying is I should take one for the team and get a vasectomy, eh?

Personally speaking, I think this is unnecessary- but the human gene pool thinks you should err on the side of caution.

Ben Kenobi · July 17, 2012, 17:01

But step up here and answer the question. If you had to choose over your wife and an unborn baby, what would you choose? You seem to be saying that you'd do nothing and let god make the decision.

I'd do whatever it was in my power to do, in terms of getting her proper medical care, etc. If either my child were to die or my wife died. Then so be it. I did what I could to keep them both.

I cannot in good conscience choose my wife over my child, or my child over my wife.

For me, I'd choose my wife every time. If you think that makes me evil, I guess I'm evil. And I can live with that.

Well, fair enough.

Flubber · July 18, 2012, 02:19

Originally Posted by rah

For me, I'd choose my wife every time. If you think that makes me evil, I guess I'm evil. And I can live with that.

Ditto... It's personal as I would choose the wife and mother I know over some potential person .....Like rah I assume there can be situations where you COULD be forced to choose.

Ben your answer of choosing both is either a non answer or a statement that you are essentially choosing the child as you would continue the pregnancy as long as possible

Flubber · July 18, 2012, 02:36

Ben

This is all currently theoretical for you. You balance a theoretical wife against a potential child while instead I turn slightly and see a very real wife sleeping beside me. Perhaps you could follow your belief system here but if you have a wife you truly love,it would be incredibly difficult to decide to allow extreme risks to be taken. She might be scared and worried and seeking support

The reality is that it won't be your decision anyway... Legally it would be hers unless she was incapable.

Kidicious · July 18, 2012, 07:09

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

I'd do whatever it was in my power to do, in terms of getting her proper medical care, etc. If either my child were to die or my wife died. Then so be it. I did what I could to keep them both.

I cannot in good conscience choose my wife over my child, or my child over my wife.

Then you would be taking the risk of both of them dying.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 18, 2012, 08:27

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

As far as I'm aware there's only one case where that would occur, and that would be an ectopic pregnancy, in which case the answer would be to save the life of my wife since we couldn't save the baby.

Except, of course, that some ectopic pregnancies result in successful birth .

So it's not a 100% certainty, is it? At which percentage does your position switch?

rah · July 18, 2012, 08:35

I think any answer he gives to that is meaningless without any experience with having a life partner. Hopefully if would have a large impact on his opinions in this area. If he's lucky enough to ever experience it, of course. Let's hope his current attitudes aren't too large of a barricade.

rah · July 18, 2012, 15:22

Please don't mention while you're dating that her health/life wouldn't be your primary consideration when reproductive issues are involved.

dannubis · July 18, 2012, 16:43

He will NEVER be able to have a real date.

He
1. is fugly,
2. has the worst set of morals a human being can imagine
3. you can't have any meaningful discussion with him since he is incapable of moving one inch from his personal standpoint (heavily influenced by number 2).

He basically moved is idiotic arse out of the gene pool...