The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Birth Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2020 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 124162
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Birth Control is useless and I can prove to it.

1) The entire purpose of reproduction is well, To make new life. Neglecting the new life will make most of the practice practically useless.
Yes I know sex gives pleasure. That pleasure is used to keep the people to reproduce so they can make more workforce to hunt, Gather, Farm, And work. If you take the pleasure away from intercourse, They may not even try to give birth to a baby. The pleasure in it works towards the goal of giving birth to a baby. Neglecting the baby would make it give basically nothing, Consider they are missing the biggest point of doing so.

2) Birth control tolerates, Or even encourages irresponsibility.
I already talked about how intercourse definitely is for bring new life and the pleasure is used to bring new life, So if we have overpopulation, We are responsible to NOT have intercourse 3 times a day and keep the population in control. All birth control pills are not 100% effective and it may bring unexpected pregnancy. If you use birth control and have intercourse, You are not trying to bring new life. Taking away the new life means only pleasure is left, Meaning you can do however many you want(in the circumstance if all birth control pills are 100% effective). The purpose for birth control is to take away the responsibility, It encourages irresponsibility consider if they are responsible they won't even buy it.


Ok, Before we engage with your more specific claims I have to address the issue with your greater framework. What you're doing here is engaging in something known as the "appeal to nature fallacy". Your already begging the question that we ought only engage with something based upon it's evolutionary biological and psychological foundations, But this 1. Skips over the problem of the is-ought gap and 2. Doesn't really make sense based on a number of other things we argue it is ethical to do. Based on nature and evolution, We should allow people with less desirable traits to die out and leave the gene pool, This would include people with different physical and mental disabilities and disorders. But we don't do that, Instead we work to improve the quality of life for these people as much as possible, We create medicine for people with diabetes, Wheelchairs for people who can't walk, We don't euthanize people with down syndrome or autism, Even something as simple as creating and producing glasses for people who have bad eyesight doesn't really make sense through an evolutionary framework since it's hereditary purely based upon natural selection we should allow these people to die of as others with more palatable traits take their spot in the gene pool. Another thing, Would you argue that all men should be poly-amorous since historically and evolutionarily it seems to be that men are built towards engaging with multiple partners? Usually in society our goal isn't to maximize for our evolutionary roots, It's to maximize the happiness and well-being of as many people in society as possible. If people wanna have sex for fun or to bond as a couple while minimizing the risk of pregnancy, And that's their purpose for having sex, Then we ought make that option available to them.

Now your claims more specifically,

1. The main purpose of birth control is very simple, It's to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We can look at this on a very empirical level, We know that planned families tend to have a better quality of life, We know that the earth faces an overpopulation problem, We know that coming from a single or teen parent household is a huge indicator of crime, We know that things like abstinence only education has never been shown to reduce the amount of sex people have when compared to other sex education programs, We know that in areas where birth control has been proliferated that rates of teen pregnancy and single-parent households are significantly reduced, We know that reduction in rates of crime are also associated with the proliferation of birth control into places. It seems like, Based of every paper I've ever read on birth control, It serves a very clear role, Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies especially among teens or one's that have a higher likely hood of leading to single parent households, As they tend to not only be less successful but also lead to a greater burden of the state and cause auxiliary harm to society. Btw, I don't know if you know this but birth control also isn't only used for stopping pregnancy, It's also used by women to help with health needs including periods and in general to avoid the spread of std's.

2) I've never seen any research pointing to the idea that birth control encourages "irresponsibility", It seems like no matter what people are gonna have sex, Disproportionately among lower income people as sex is something that is fun, Available, And most importantly free. So instead of acting like people are just gonna stop having sex, Maybe we should make a safer option for having sex available. The idea that people are perfect agents who can engage with the world in perfectly responsible ways is unimaginably naive and completely disregards all the findings in the fields of sociology, Psychology, Even to some extent biology. We don't only care about making new life, This idea is ridiculous, If this was our only goal then the natural direction that takes us to is basically turning women into cattle meant only for reproduction. It's not only about making more life it's also about increasing the quality of life for those who are created, And it seems to be the vast consensus among researchers that birth control is an absolute net positive for society.

Links hopefully in comments
Debate Round No. 1


I would argue for your position if Human Cloning is perfect and legal. When something goes outdated and not being utilized as much, It be recreational. Running straight for 28 miles is less efficient than, To use a car, So marathon is not for pure traveling: it is for competition and recreation. Shooting arrows in most countries may not even give you a single drop of meat, And it is used for competition and recreation. If human sexual intercourse is replaced by human cloning later into the future, Then I can see how sexual intercourse is indeed recreational and pleasurable. Well that is not now. So far Sexual intercourse is one of the most common ways to procreate life, And human future literally depends on it. Unless you found a way to physically just genetically engineer humans, Or anything else that make normal sex inferior. So far normal sex I accept is the superior way to reproduce as it requires no extra work, Is free, And is kind of pleasurable. But pleasure eventually works to keep reproducing as evolution depends on it.

Other than humans, All animals reproduce for new life, Not for only pleasure. In fact humans may be the only one to majorly use pleasure in sexual interactions, Which is odd. Humans in the old ages reproduce tirelessly to make new life, And now the earth is overpopulated. I know the last sentence supports your point, But suppose everyone on earth in this present 50 years use birth control remedies and they actually works, Then earth's population will keep shrinking. We must keep producing children in order to keep up. In this case, Birth control tolerates over-rate sex, Meaning if you do sex every week and have birth control, You may only get pregnant once 3 years or more. Taking the birth control away, And you will be pregnant so quickly that the family will go bankrupt. Leave the children in the orphanage? Do abortion? Both options seem to be irresponsible to the child. Meanwhile the average couple does once a week, And let's just say they do it within the time frame from 20 to 50 years old, Then that would be about 1500$ spent on just birth control. I understand a baby would cost more. But even then, Being grown adults. . . They still doesn't understand the responsibility of sex? Only pleasure? No. The traditional way of doing sex is specifically meant to procreate life, Or else if it was meant for pleasure there will be a separate gland that prevents semen from getting in. Ovulation also supports the idea. Humans have sex, As genetically said with common sense, Is to procreate, And birth control was not meant to even exist.

The adults now are looking for pleasure too much that they neglect a major factor of procreation. Based on human anatomy since human organs are supposed to handle a baby, And since humans literally depends on this process to procreate, Thus doing it just for the sake of pleasure is pretty sacrilegious and it may be a disobedience to nature itself.

Based on the bible, Which is the one book that teaches a lot of reliable morals, Premarital sex is a sin and is bad. Take that into mind.

Birth control actually CAUSED the problem instead of solving it. There will be 2 possibilities if birth control never existed.
1) No premarital sex and no unwanted pregnancy, It is normal.
2) Teen pregnancy is so normal that it is not a problem. Remember ova are meant to be fertilized, That would mean 13-year-old girls, Or even 10-year-old girls, Can be pregnant, If there is no pressure from the society itself.

This is on top of which birth control is not 100% effective, Making pregnancy even more unwanted.

From here on until 2 sections over, It is your ground. Awaiting for your response.


1. There is a fundamental criticism to your argument you have failed to address, Your claims rely entirely on an appeal to nature, Here being the idea that because an activity has a primary evolutionary usage, That ought be the only way we utilize said activity, But this doesn't work because we don't form any other moral claim in this manner. As I said before, We don't just leave disabled people to natural selection because evolutionarily that's what should happen. You can't just make an appeal to nature and expect that to be the foundation of your entire argument, You need a different foundation. You are begging the question when the burden of proof for why someone shouldn't be allowed to have sex for their own personal enjoyment is on you, And you have failed to present that proof.

2. Your running example doesn't even necessarily make sense, There is still a primary usage for running, Staying healthy, But many people don't just run to stay healthy, They engage in said activity far beyond what would be necessary to do so because they just enjoy the adrenaline rush of running. This is true of many other athletic activities and sports to, In fact many of said activities even risk significant injury and are still done beyond what is necessary to remain healthy. The main usage of eating is to give our bodies energy and yet we don't say people ought min max the nutritional intake of every meal because we recognize that even if some foods may not be the most health efficient to eat, It brings people joy to eat them and that enjoyment has value. We recognize that someone should be allowed to do the things that bring them joy, As that is one of our markers for someones quality of life.

3. It's not true that humans are the only animals who will regularly use pleasure in sexual interactions, Dolphins do this, Bonobo Chimps do this, Even pigs might do this (that ones a bit more debated), Please don't make claims so demonstrably untrue. The over population point is to my point, The idea that if the population stops growing it will end up shrinking to a dangerous level is a false dilemma, It is entirely possible that we reach a level of population equilibrium, Or begin colonizing other planets and incentive population growth there. "Taking the birth control away, And you will be pregnant so quickly that the family will go bankrupt. Leave the children in the orphanage? Do abortion? Both options seem to be irresponsible to the child. Meanwhile the average couple does once a week, And let's just say they do it within the time frame from 20 to 50 years old, Then that would be about 1500$ spent on just birth control. I understand a baby would cost more. " This literally speaks to my argument, A baby does cost more, Not only to the parent but also to the state since single/teen parents will be more reliant on welfare, And because children born to teen and single parent households are over represented in crime so you'll probably be paying for the incarceration of said child as well. Birth control reduces both teen and single parent households, This has be shown is numerous studies.

4. NO, Adults don't understand the responsibility of sex, And teens definitely don't understand that responsibility. I know grown adult who unironically think if you have sex in a shower you won't get pregnant because the water will wash the semen away, This also effects poor people disproportionately since they have less access to quality sex education and contraception. People in general are incredibly irresponsible and incredibly predictable as groups, We should equip them with as many tools and incentives as possible to engage in said sex acts as responsibly as possible, The unanimously agreed upon way to do this by the consensus of people in the fields of sociology, Psychology, And economics is via better sex education and more accessibility to contraception. Please don't use the words "common sense", These are weasel words, It's something people say when they don't have an actual argument for why they think something. Also the traditional way is to have 12 kids, Have 2 of them die as still-borns and have 7 of them die of starvation. As people we advance and develop, The way humans in society today engage with the world is completely different from how we did as hunter gatherer societies, In fact I can even use this logic against you, As human's one of things we evolved to do is create tools to better our own quality of lives, This is where cars came from, This is where the computer you're on right now came from, And it's where we got contraception, By this line evolution allowed us to create contraception and contraception should exist.

5. If humanity depends on procreation and should be so primarily focused on it, Why don't we literally just treat women as cattle and put them in cages where we only let them out to procreate and carry children, It might be because we value other things more then just maximizing for procreation as humans.

"Birth control actually CAUSED the problem instead of solving it. There will be 2 possibilities if birth control never existed.
1) No premarital sex and no unwanted pregnancy, It is normal.
2) Teen pregnancy is so normal that it is not a problem. Remember ova are meant to be fertilized, That would mean 13-year-old girls, Or even 10-year-old girls, Can be pregnant, If there is no pressure from the society itself. "

1) This is an insane counterfactual that isn't true historically, Before contraception we still had plenty of unwanted pregnancy and premarital sex, And no study has ever shown the removal of contraception from an area being associated with decrease in the amount of sex, Only with an increase in the rate of single and teen parent households, Crime, And child abandonment.

2) 10 year olds getting pregnant is incredibly rare as most of the time they are pre-menstruation and incapable of pregnancy, Historically and even currently these pregnancy are far more dangerous for both the mother and the child, A thirteen year old is far more likely to miscarry or die during child birth. Once again teen pregnancy is far more associated with poverty, Criminality, And child neglect. It feels like you only care about these kids up until the point they are actually born and face all the suffering their environment now makes them privy to. Finally, Do you really think a 10 year old can consent to sexual activity, Are you pro pedophilia, Genuine question not trying to attack you?

Birth control not being 100 percent effective does not make those pregnancies more unwanted, Those two things don't necessarily logically connect, Here is a question if wearing a seat-belt and having air bags isn't 100 percent effective, Does that mean we should remove them from cars and hope people just take responsibility for driving safe?
Debate Round No. 2


While some of your argument points may hold some validity, Others do not.

1. No one is not entitled to the rights of having sex, But having it for only pleasure seems like a waste of energy. Like any other organism on earth, The reason sex existed is to reproduce and procreate. Taking the procreation away and the use decreases by a huge margin. So my argument to refute yours is:
1) Sex is always a tool to create new life.
2) Using it without any new life will be wasteful.
Safe sex? Safe sex? What? Since when is having a child dangerous? Having a child is the most blessing thing a couple can have, As I assume. Taking the reproduction out of reproduction and you will find an activity that will bring temporary satisfaction of penile, Vaginal and clitoral orgasm, But not the eternal fulfillment of a future life. Using birth control is the action of one not ready for kids. Assume if one doesn't have kids, Then these must be true:
1) They would not want to be pregnant.
2) The best way of not getting pregnant is abstinence, Or if you really can't hold it, Masturbation.
3) Thus, If they don't want kids, They would not even use birth control, Consider:
a) Birth control contradicts its existence as it takes the reproduction out of reproduction.
b) Birth control is not 100% effective.
And no, People can just stop having sex. It is possible because of the books in the school, The ones taught in middle school, Suggests abstinence over any kind of birth control. Birth control also blocks out STDs including HIV, But not having sex gives even less of a risk. If the partner does have STDs, You shouldn't even be having sex with him/her in the first place, Let alone birth control methods like condoms.

2. Maybe my example was a bit off, But the satisfaction in running HELPS to get healthy, While the sheer, Empty satisfaction in sexual intercourse HINDERS children consider you are having it too much. Keep in mind ALL organisms, Including humans, Has a primary job of sexual intercourse of procreation. We would favor procreation instead of empty satisfaction. We would decrease birth control to get MORE responsibility and MORE efficient and planned children's births.
We need responsibilities. Having irresponsibility over the sexual relationship and getting away is the complete toleration of a bad habit. Sex is created by and for organisms for the sake to procreate, As I said.

4. I hate to repeat but the responsibility is needed during this issue. This is mad serious. This is not some kind of joke where someone just plays with someone else. You are carrying the future of your bloodline or even the earth, But you are wasting it so engage in a level of pleasure that won't increase if you do birth control.
It should be noted that people should use the opportunity to give birth to a child, Instead of wasting it on something that has only a few seconds to minutes of the pleasurable outcome. A future of your bloodline for a few seconds of pleasure is an extremely bad trade.

5. No, Because today there is overpopulation. Even though I agree with what you said here, Sex is still not specifically for pleasure. Not even close. Unless working in the military, An average woman has a perfect time or more to procreate a child. A process of sex can be done under 20 minutes, And your example is too exaggerated. Having sex to procreate does not mean to give them pressure, But using them without a life-giving outcome is too little of the pressure they needed to recognize the responsibility of sexual actions, Where every single human being on this planet called earth should recognize and practice.

And by that, I may give an offed example again. Another reason birth controls CAUSED problems is that pregnancies are even more unexpected than not having any birth control. You may have noticed this, But birth control does not make sex safe: you are making literally about nothing out of this action. Airbags help the driving of the car. Birth control neither increases the pleasure nor does it makes you a wonderful baby dancing on the floor.

The argument is done. Await for yours. This is a nice debate so far.


1. It's fine if that usage for pleasure seems like a waste to you, But unless their actions create a clear and present harm to you or anyone else, People should be able to engage in activities they deem enjoyable. You keep making an argument of biological prescriptivism, But every time I have asked if then we should take that foundation to it's natural extreme and allow disabled people or people with genetic disorders to die out via natural selection, You avoid answering that question, Unless you bite that bullet you need a different argument then, We evolved to reproduce using sex and so that ought only be used for that purpose, Especially considering another one of our biological adaptations, Tool making to better our quality of life, Directly attributes to the creation of contraception since whenever it is introduced into a community, It produces demonstrable gains.

1) This isn't true, People use sex for pleasure all the time without planning on getting pregnant, Even without contraception people do the dumb pull out meme, Which is far more dangerous but still used by people because people will have sex purely for the fun of it even without access to safety measures like contraceptives. This also isn't just a human thing, Dolphins and bonobos also do the same without the intention of reproducing, Thats why you even see homosexual activity among these species
2)It's not wasteful, You act as though there is a limit on the amount of sex you can have, Just because you have sex for pleasure doesn't mean you can't later use it to reproduce or vice versa. Safe sex is about reducing the likely hood of getting pregnant or spreading an std. Having a child is dangerous when you can't afford a kid, When you aren't mentally prepared for a child, When you may face the likely-hood of being thrown out as a teen for getting pregnant, When pregnancy might lead to a single parent household, When the conditions of adoption are in their current state. The idea of bringing a child into the world purely for your own fulfillment, Regardless of if you are actually capable of caring for it is ridiculously selfish. You also fail to realize that people are not perfect logicians, They will have sex even if they don't want a child, And even if they don't have contraception, That's why in places without access to contraception you see higher rates of child abandonment and infanticide. People will not be abstinent, And if you believe they will it denotes a fundamental misunderstanding of how groups of people function, I implore you to look into studies about birth control and abstinence only education, Pretty much all the literature here point towards the idea that teaching abstinence only doesn't only not help, But may cause people to engage in sex more, Perhaps because of the allure of the taboo especially among younger people. Also we aren't taking about reproduction we are talking about sex, Not every sex act leads to reproduction, Stop equivocating the two, We have separate words for a reason. Once again seat belts aren't 100 percent effective, Should remove them, Of course not because they reduce the likely hood of an accident in the same way contraception does. I will link to a study about the abstinence only education as a way of reducing sex in the comments. It just doesn't work, There is no respectable researcher in the field who will tell you it works, It's an incredibly infantile way of looking for solutions to problems like these.

2. Sexual intercourse doesn't hinder children, In fact a couple engaging in a healthy amount of safe sex can be a positive in their relationship, Therefore reducing the likely-hood they will separate, Which is a positive for their child. It's also not an empty satisfaction, For many people it can be a vulnerable way of showing affection for a significant other, Once again you over simply it just because it's not the way you utilize it. Right now I wouldn't favor procreation because we are headed towards overpopulation, So it makes sense to reduce the rate of it, Also it's not your place to say that someone who wants to enjoy sex shouldn't be able to do so without procreating, That's for them to decide. Decreasing birth control would only increase the rate of unplanned pregnancies. Contraception is positively correlated with increases in more responsible, More planned children's birth, The correlation you point to doesn't exist, All the research points to the proliferation of contraceptives to be a net positive. You keep going back to the biological prescriptivism arguments, But you haven't mounted a single defense against my criticisms of that ethical foundation, Which leads me to belief you have no defenses and so I can't take it seriously as an argument.

4) Personal responsibility doesn't matter when we are looking at outcomes, All that matters is the inputs that reduce the outcomes we don't want and increase the outcomes we do want. You can't expect people to just not have sex or engage with the world as perfect logicians especially considering many poor people don't receive any sexual education at all. Contraception and more comprehensive sexual education are overwhelmingly positive inputs when it comes to reducing unwanted pregnancies, Teen parents, Single parent households, Child poverty, Child abandonment, Infanticide, Abortion, And even crime rates, There is literally no argument against it from a pragmatic point of view. Also you keep creating a false dilemma between having sex for pleasure and reproducing, People can do both, Just because you don't want every sexual encounter with a partner to lead to a pregnancy doesn't mean you can never want one that does.

5) So this isn't true, There are plenty of careers a women could have that child birth and care would be a detriment towards, Especially if they don't have an extended family to help. My example was an attack on your obsession with maximizing for procreation when that is not our primary moral imperative, Our primary moral imperative is to maximize the well-being of as many people as possible, Something contraception absolutely helps to do. Once again your going back to the biological prescriptivism, And as you have repeatedly failed to address my criticisms of that paradigm I can't take that ethical foundation seriously.

Let me lay out the comparison since you seem to have missed it. There are people who drive cars for pleasure, Just to relax and maybe listen to the radio, This is not a necessary action but people will do it, This activity puts them at risk of dying in a car crash but we have given them access to safety measures in the form of seat-belts and air bags to reduce outcomes of them dying in a car crash. We wouldn't remove these safety measures because they aren't 100 percent effective and expect people to just stop driving for fun, All that would happen is we would see more deaths via car crash. In the same vein, We have people who enjoy having sex, Whether it be to bond with a partner or just for the physical pleasure. It's not a necessary action but people will do it. People having sex for fun puts them at risk of unwanted pregnancy, Specifically those that lead to teen and single parent households, Both of which are correlated with very bad outcomes for the child, So we have given them access to safety measures in the form of contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy. We wouldn't remove contraception because it isn't 100 percent effective and expect people to just stop having sex for fun (especially considering the literature points to the opposite occurring when contraception is removed and replaced with the abstinence only approach), In the same way we wouldn't remove airbags and seat-belts from cars. That's the comparison I was making.

Listen, I love you buddy, Just please look into the studies and literature on this topic, And stop using biological prescriptivism as your foundation for arguments, It's so unbearably flawed. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Link to study about abstinence only
https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Do you think every action we take has to be to maximize overall fulfillment, Is it a waste of time to eat your favorite snack, Or do any activity that brings you joy? What if we found out that by removing all hedonistic acts from life the rate of depression and suicide among people spiked because they have nothing to do between finding more fulfilling actions. What if for some people, Fulfillment doesn't come in the form of one specific thing but as a collection of smaller partially fulfilling things. Also who are you to tell people what action give them fulfillment or not, That seems like something every individual has to find for themselves, For many people the idea of having kids doesn't give them any sense of fulfillment at all, For many people sex acts is a fulfilling aspect of showing affection to their significant other. Some hedonistic acts underlie a connection to a greater sense of fulfillment, Maybe someone plays a game because they hedonistically enjoy the pleasure playing games gives them, But maybe that hedonistic hobby gives them access to the greater fulfillment of engaging in a community of other people who share similar interest. Many people have kids out of hedonistic pleasure because they like the idea of having their legacy continue on or having someone they can make achieve the things they always wanted to. If for you sex only is only a fulfilling action in connection to reproduction that's fine, But you can't then try and apply that same lense to other people when they feel fulfillment in a very different way then you do. Of course there are people who can engage in things to the point of self detriment, But that is true of everything in society and it's important to remember that just because someone can engage with an activity in an unhealthy manner doesn't mean people can't engage with that same activity in a healthy way while still gaining pleasure from it.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
I mean, Non-responsible sex is kind of a waste of time as it is hedonism-centric and it is the same as playing phones and read manga out of boredom that does not give you complete fulfillment: it only gives you partial satisfaction that doesn't last for forever. You don't say "Hey! My life is basically complete after this! " After having sex, Unless it is a celebrity, In which the focus isn't even on the empty pleasure itself.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Why do you think you should have a say in whether or not people should have sex for pleasure if said action doesn't harm anyone else or effect you in any way, If gay people wouldn't be having sex at all unless it was in the context of with a partner they can't reproduce with why does it matter. Do you also think people who are infertile shouldn't have sex, Should they be ethically restricted from engaging in said act since they could only ever do so for pleasure as opposed to as a means of reproduction. Couldn't it be a positive to have people who are in none reproductive relationships since they 1. Wouldn't be contributing to the problems overpopulation presents us today and 2. Since they would then be more likely to adopt, Especially since we have so many children living without parents since many of their had them and weren't ready to take care of them.
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
Well Sexual intercourse is optional. Sex is the most useful when it procreates life. Because homosexual sex mainly never procreates life so I dislike it. Having Children is important for many people and it should not be used for only pleasure and nothing else.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
"I would prefer a romantic-and-learn relationship than one revolving around sex. "
Do you think because gay people have sex it means that is all their relationship revolves around or do you think maybe that sex is one aspect of a more complex number of factors that go into their relationship and can even be used as a way to show their romantic affection towards one another?
Posted by anc2006 1 year ago
I accept homosexuality as an idea, But not everything. Pornstars could be heterosexual and homosexual and I still hate them. Maybe is because I am young still, But I would prefer a romantic-and-learn relationship than one revolving around sex.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
"I support and accept homosexuality as a whole, But I dislike sex toys and homosexual sexual actions. This takes one of the major uses away. "
You realize this statement is contradictory right. If you dislike homosexual sexual action because it takes one of the major uses away, Then there is a portion of homosexuality you don't accept, Meaning you don't accept homosexuality as a whole.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
I had 3 links but only 1 works disappointing
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
https://www. Acog. Org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescent-Pregnancy-Contraception-and-Sexual-Activity? IsMobileSet=false
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.