Secular Pro-Life Sex Policy

[Simon JM]

I think it’s about time that secular Pro-life start to differentiate from the religious conservatives by among other things having a sex positive stance.

Sex isn’t just for marriage.
There is nothing wrong with the use of some contraception e.g. condoms, spermicide withdrawal, rhythm method especially when combined.
There are plenty of ways of gaining sexual pleasure, alone or with partners, that has no risk at all of unwanted pregnancies.

I would like this debated and uploaded onto the site and or also do brochures.

[jamesongraber]

While I agree that it would be wise for the pro-life movement to push more in this direction, I also think it is possible to still be diplomatic toward religious pro-lifers. Instead of absolute statements about sexual morality such as, "There is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage," we could say something like, "We think that all people, regardless of their stance on sexual morality, can stand for the protection of human life. There are many ways in which those who choose to be sexually active before marriage can help prevent unwanted pregnancies. We support comprehensive sex education that promotes sexual health and teaches effective methods of contraception, as these methods will be favorable to a large percentage of the public. Those with religious beliefs about sex can and should teach those beliefs to their children in an appropriate setting. However, it is not necessary for pro-lifers to insist that the general public receive abstinence-only sex education."

What I've written is a bit clunky, I'll admit, but I just wanted to make the point that it is good to strive for diplomacy.

[Cde. ☭]

I think we should, while being diplomatic within reason, we should highlight that there is no "right age" or "right reason" to have sex. As long as both parties have informed consent, it's okay. (Abortion is immoral because the baby does not consent.) The only way to obtain informed consent is to start comprehensive sex ed as early as possible.

[chinkleDC]

Using "sex positive" terms would put the group in the position of advocating sex, and I'm not sure that's something that the group should do. It's about advocating for life outside of a religious context. Not all people who base their pro-life beliefs outside of religion are sexually liberal, just as religious pro-lifers are not necessarily anti-sex.

I think the sex education statement currently in place does a good job of stating the need for education without choosing a position (so to speak) for or against extramarital sex. I think it could be expanded to advocate for more education which takes into account the reality of the situation -- that people just do not abstain. And even those who choose to abstain deserve to be empowered to know what is out there that other people are doing (or should do) when they have sex, because, eventually, they will be confronted with it either personally or via the media. Everyone should be able to speak intelligently about contraception and STD prevention so as to make informed choices about their own sexual behavior and to talk with others (esp. partners) about their choices.

[truthpluslove]

While I have a religious belief on this, I am still formulating my opinion for secular purposes.

Meanwhile, here is a secular argument against contraceptive, albeit from a religious (Catholic) source: Janet Smith, PhD, is a professor at the University of Dallas.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/smith ... rtion.html

[Simon JM]

While I agree that it would be wise for the pro-life movement to push more in this direction, I also think it is possible to still be diplomatic toward religious pro-lifers. Instead of absolute statements about sexual morality such as, "There is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage," we could say something like, "We think that all people, regardless of their stance on sexual morality, can stand for the protection of human life. There are many ways in which those who choose to be sexually active before marriage can help prevent unwanted pregnancies. We support comprehensive sex education that promotes sexual health and teaches effective methods of contraception, as these methods will be favorable to a large percentage of the public. Those with religious beliefs about sex can and should teach those beliefs to their children in an appropriate setting. However, it is not necessary for pro-lifers to insist that the general public receive abstinence-only sex education."

What I've written is a bit clunky, I'll admit, but I just wanted to make the point that it is good to strive for diplomacy.

I see part of your point but who is it aimed at when Kelsey has posted research showing 95 have premarital sex? Are we to think they have done something wrong? Some sex educationalists are advocating information on masturbation techniques as a 'healthy' way to better sex. Because some segments of society still have hangups about sex should that be a reason to pander to them? The horse has bolted the lets not talk about it stance just continues the message somethink there is something inheretly wrong with sex and if you want to take that line you are going to have to give me some secular reasons for it.

BTW should we also want to be diplomatic they don't have a high opinion of us esp the atheist ones among us.

I agree it shouldn't be forced on those that don't want it but nor should it be withheld from those that do.
On the other hadnthose site could be for both progressive-I'm one- and conservative secular Pro-Lifers but I don't see the need to seek approval from religious conservatives on this. At the very least we provide a link to those that do want a progressive view on this.

[Simon JM]

Using "sex positive" terms would put the group in the position of advocating sex, and I'm not sure that's something that the group should do. It's about advocating for life outside of a religious context. Not all people who base their pro-life beliefs outside of religion are sexually liberal, just as religious pro-lifers are not necessarily anti-sex.

I think the sex education statement currently in place does a good job of stating the need for education without choosing a position (so to speak) for or against extramarital sex. I think it could be expanded to advocate for more education which takes into account the reality of the situation -- that people just do not abstain. And even those who choose to abstain deserve to be empowered to know what is out there that other people are doing (or should do) when they have sex, because, eventually, they will be confronted with it either personally or via the media. Everyone should be able to speak intelligently about contraception and STD prevention so as to make informed choices about their own sexual behavior and to talk with others (esp. partners) about their choices.

At the very least we shouldn't be sex negative whcih is basically what being sex postive is being about, its just that is used in opposition to those seen as sex negative. (BTW OT again I would ask what are your secular reasons for not seeing sex as a healthy activity between consenting partners?)

Again as an option fine take a neutral looking stance but at least provide a link to progressive viewpoints on sex in a Pro-Life viewpoint. Lets put it this way I would imagine there are a good % of Americans who have premarital sex who see nothing wrong with it. There is also many young Americans who now hold Pro-Life views who also see nothing wrong premarital sex -why shouldn't they?- so why not give these individuals information or views that compliment their lifestyle choices? Not only that it is a perfect way to get attention, but also undermines Pro-Choicers arguments that Pro-lIfe all comes from religious conservatism, and shows, with our woman centred polices, that some of us are just as modern or contemporary to the Pro-Choicers who think they hold the high moral ground.

[Simon JM]

While I have a religious belief on this, I am still formulating my opinion for secular purposes.

Meanwhile, here is a secular argument against contraceptive, albeit from a religious (Catholic) source: Janet Smith, PhD, is a professor at the University of Dallas.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/smith ... rtion.html

She has some good points but I think as a purely secular argument it fails. It is equally secular to see sexual relations as relative or contextual, it can be as special as you want or simply a matter of a pleasurable activity between two consenting people. For our purposes as long as no unwanted pregnancies with abortions take place it is of no concern to us what consenting people do sexually in their private lives.

Yes contraceptives have added to the problem but the philosophical identity issue that wrongly excludes prentals as having moral worth is at the root of the problem. Even RvW sees this. If they are persons they count and contraceptives doesn't change that.

IMO the biggest problem is that up til now people tend to think Pro-Lifers are just plain wrong because it is a religious view and since they are wrong on things like homsexuality as well, and no secular people have the same views, they think they have to be wrong on this as well.

[aMuseandAngels]

I think regardless of personal morality dealing with who you have sex with or when you have sex, sex education is always a good thing. Let's always strive for truth and information to get out there. Everyone should be informed so that no choices are made blindly.

Contraceptives that are not abortificients should also always be made available. They reduce the percieved "need" for abortions.They reduce life-ending STDs. The pro-life movement should not be about trying to keep people from having sex. Helping people prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus being put in a situation where a child might be killed is ALL this is about. Let's let parents teach their children about abstinence and/or sexual partner discretion- our focus should be on reducing neonatal mortality. And let's face it- people, young and old will ALWAYS be having sex. Abstinence is a personal ideal and while an excellent choice really isn't our business.

[SarahB]

A lot of people who might otherwise sympathize with a pro-life philosophy simply can't get on board as long as they think it will put them in the same camp as people who oppose contraception and sex ed (it put me off calling myself pro-life for years). And the traditional pro-life opposition to contraception and sex ed has given pro-choicers extra ammunition: "Without sex ed and contraception, there will be all these tragic unwanted pregnancies all over the place--abortion has to be available!" I think the pro-life movement could benefit tremendously by embracing the concept of sex ed.

That said, I've come across some fairly objectionable aspects of sex ed curricula and I honestly sympathize with people who are leery of it being taught in schools. But as someone here said I don't think we have to get into the nitty gritty of the curricula. If we embrace the idea of accurate information and balanced perspectives (i.e., abstinence, pre-marital sex, and birth control) we signal that we are more open, more realistic and less hypocritical than pro-lifers are usually thought to be.

We think that all people, regardless of their stance on sexual morality, can stand for the protection of human life.

Well said!