Sport and Abortion

This discussion was created from comments split from: Abortion.
«13

Comments

  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?
  • BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?
  • IUDs don't suit everyone, and who wants to be using a condom all the time in a marriage?
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    IUDs don't suit everyone, and who wants to be using a condom all the time in a marriage?

    People who don't want to get pregnant, can't use the pill, IUD, implant and still want to have sex. I don't think anyone enjoys using contraception but having an abortion because you won't use the methods available seems... I don't even know the word.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    People forget “in the heat of the moment”. All it takes is once. Plus the man is also, at least in theory, equipped with both brakes and some sense of personal responsibility. Remembering Robin Williams “penis brain” isn’t the only brain available.

    But I think we should cut them some slack. There aren’t too many of us who don’t know the moment. Passion can certainly shut off the messages from the frontal brain.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    IUDs don't suit everyone, and who wants to be using a condom all the time in a marriage?

    People who don't want to get pregnant, can't use the pill, IUD, implant and still want to have sex. I don't think anyone enjoys using contraception but having an abortion because you won't use the methods available seems... I don't even know the word.

    The word is 'risky'.
  • BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    People forget “in the heat of the moment”. All it takes is once. Plus the man is also, at least in theory, equipped with both brakes and some sense of personal responsibility. Remembering Robin Williams “penis brain” isn’t the only brain available.

    But I think we should cut them some slack. There aren’t too many of us who don’t know the moment. Passion can certainly shut off the messages from the frontal brain.

    "Passion" is one word for it, but I think it's the animal brain taking over and acting on the basic urge to procreate. And I agree we ought to cut them some slack.
  • BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    I would draw a distinction between contraceptive failure and choosing an abortion and having abortion as your preferred method for dealing with having sex and not having a baby. Also, condoms used correctly are pretty close to 100% effective. Multiple methods in combination are even more reliable.
  • BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    I would draw a distinction between contraceptive failure and choosing an abortion and having abortion as your preferred method for dealing with having sex and not having a baby. Also, condoms used correctly are pretty close to 100% effective. Multiple methods in combination are even more reliable.

    My understanding of the article is that none of the women athletes take that view.

    My point isn't that no form of family planning other than abortion is available. My point is that a career in sports/athletics and its possible rewards* means a woman must give up far more to have a baby than women who can take a career break or for whom a career is secondary to having children.

    *I don't mean financial. I mean in terms of excellence: being the best in your sport, prizes, records, medals, and so on.
  • BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    I would draw a distinction between contraceptive failure and choosing an abortion and having abortion as your preferred method for dealing with having sex and not having a baby. Also, condoms used correctly are pretty close to 100% effective. Multiple methods in combination are even more reliable.

    My understanding of the article is that none of the women athletes take that view.

    My point isn't that no form of family planning other than abortion is available. My point is that a career in sports/athletics and its possible rewards* means a woman must give up far more to have a baby than women who can take a career break or for whom a career is secondary to having children.

    *I don't mean financial. I mean in terms of excellence: being the best in your sport, prizes, records, medals, and so on.

    That's certainly true. I was responding to your comments (and @Pendragon 's) which seemed to be implying that if female athletes had to resort to abortion.
  • That's certainly true. I was responding to your comments (and @Pendragon 's) which seemed to be implying that if female athletes had to resort to abortion.

    I didn't intend to suggest abortion was the only form of family planing available to an athlete, only that should she become pregnant then abortion is, as it was for those women, the only option if they are to continue a successful sporting career.

    One issue with condoms is that they put the onus on the male and as some of those women's accounts show the male isn't always 100% sympathetic to the woman's desire not to have a child. Not saying any of those women's partners would be a big enough bastard to get her pregnant deliberately, but the drive to have children can be immensely strong and override good judgement.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    It's a fair distinction. Just a bit hard to apply consistently!
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It's a fair distinction. Just a bit hard to apply consistently!

    Which is one of many reasons I have no intention of trying to apply it! Where's Solomon when you need him?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    In my mind, this is a non-issue. A woman has a the right to decide whether or not she wants to have an abortion, period.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    What shall it profit a woman, if she shall gain the podium, and lose her own soul?
  • Enoch wrote: »
    What shall it profit a woman, if she shall gain the podium, and lose her own soul?

    Seriously? Only now that I have belatedly understood the remit of this board I think implying that women who've had an abortion have "lost their soul" falls way short of what is expected here.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    @Colin Smith You are junior hosting. Leave instructions to other shipmates to the appointed hosts.

    Gwai,
    Epiphanies Host

    @Enoch I think I see where you are going with that. Want to explain it?
  • Gwai wrote: »
    @Colin Smith You are junior hosting. Leave instructions to other shipmates to the appointed hosts.

    Gwai,
    Epiphanies Host

    @Enoch I think I see where you are going with that. Want to explain it?

    Apologies. After all the problems I caused I was stunned to see Enoch's comment.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited August 2020
    Feel free to call him to Hell if it bothers you. Otherwise, leave hosting to the hosts.

    Gwai,
    Epiphanies Host.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'm flagging up that whether some shipmates like it or not, the traditional view, taken for granted virtually universally until very recently would have been that an abortion so that having a baby wouldn't interfere with one's sporting career would betoken a sense of priorities that was a denial of a lot of what many people would advocate as 'normal and decent human values'. That would have been largely independent of a person's view on the core question whether abortion was sometimes ethically permissible or never was.

    30 years ago, even those who advocated allowing abortion as a sometimes unfortunate but understandable necessity, would have taken it as read that asking two reputable doctors to sign the forms 'because it would get in the way of my competing in X' would have seen a person sent away with a flea in the ear, 'you expect me to agree to this when we are seeing people with requests founded in real moral hardship'.

    Put in the raw terms of is 'so that I can compete in X' ever of remotely comparable value against someone else's life, whether born or unborn? That such a thing could be posed as such strikes me as an argument in favour of stricter rather than more relaxed abortion laws.

    It also betokens a exaggeratedly distorted view of the importance that should be allowed to sport in human life.

  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm flagging up that whether some shipmates like it or not, the traditional view, taken for granted virtually universally until very recently would have been that an abortion so that having a baby wouldn't interfere with one's sporting career would betoken a sense of priorities that was a denial of a lot of what many people would advocate as 'normal and decent human values'. That would have been largely independent of a person's view on the core question whether abortion was sometimes ethically permissible or never was.

    30 years ago, even those who advocated allowing abortion as a sometimes unfortunate but understandable necessity, would have taken it as read that asking two reputable doctors to sign the forms 'because it would get in the way of my competing in X' would have seen a person sent away with a flea in the ear, 'you expect me to agree to this when we are seeing people with requests founded in real moral hardship'.

    Put in the raw terms of is 'so that I can compete in X' ever of remotely comparable value against someone else's life, whether born or unborn? That such a thing could be posed as such strikes me as an argument in favour of stricter rather than more relaxed abortion laws.

    It also betokens a exaggeratedly distorted view of the importance that should be allowed to sport in human life.

    1. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people do not regard the termination of an embryo early in pregnancy as the taking of someone's life.

    2. There's no difference between a career in sport and any other kind of career. If anything the physical demands of a sports career and the short duration of a career in sport mean any sportswoman choosing to keep a baby has to give up far more than a woman engaged in most other kinds of career.

    3. Do you accept that a woman is perfectly justified in getting an abortion in order to continue with her career?

    4. What specifically do you mean by "lose her soul"?

  • Women apparently don't get to prioritize their careers, only men get to do that.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Women apparently don't get to prioritize their careers, only men get to do that.

    That is my inference too.
  • George SpiggottGeorge Spiggott Shipmate Posts: 9
    When Enoch said "Loose their soul" I wonder if they meant figuratively or literally?
  • I think Enoch was just quoting a well know verse from the Bible, changing it slightly for relevance to this thread

    "Mark 8:36
    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I think Enoch was just quoting a well know verse from the Bible, changing it slightly for relevance to this thread

    "Mark 8:36
    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

    Good thing it says ‘man’ then, not ‘women’. If we are going to be so literal.

    Enoch’s ideas are wrong and cruel on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start. Many, many things were ‘taken for granted virtually universally’ - all of which are misogynistic, cruel and plain wrong, often evil.

    How long, how long must women fight for even a semblance of equality while these attitudes remain?

    Religion has a lot to answer for. 😡

  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Not too sure he did render it relevant.

    The sense of the verse, AIUI, is that no amount of wealth/success make up for the destruction of some essential element of selfhood.

    Which seems to imply that declining motherhood is profoundly - terminally even - negating of the female existence. Which for me recalls the experience of - aged about 15 - perking up when a woman on the radio came on to talk about Creativity. Only to be scunnered when, after going on a bit about writing and so forth, she opined that's having a baby was of course the only truly creative act.

    I admit to the maternal instinct of a cuckoo, but if I have one strong opinion it is that a brain is of more consequence than a womb, and that women should be valued at least as much on the output from the one as the other.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Amen @Firenze

    My maternal instinct is very strong - I nurture a puppy every year because of it. But the right to choose is a fundamental right men simply take for granted. Those who think it should be otherwise for women need to recalibrate their thinking.

    I’m sure many, many women are grateful for the morning after pill. Not to be taken lightly - but a good answer for those who have a sexual slip up. Someone on the other thread said no contraception is perfect - that’s the problem.
  • George SpiggottGeorge Spiggott Shipmate Posts: 9
    Firenze wrote: »
    Not too sure he did render it relevant.

    The sense of the verse, AIUI, is that no amount of wealth/success make up for the destruction of some essential element of selfhood.

    Which seems to imply that declining motherhood is profoundly - terminally even - negating of the female existence. Which for me recalls the experience of - aged about 15 - perking up when a woman on the radio came on to talk about Creativity. Only to be scunnered when, after going on a bit about writing and so forth, she opined that's having a baby was of course the only truly creative act.

    I admit to the maternal instinct of a cuckoo, but if I have one strong opinion it is that a brain is of more consequence than a womb, and that women should be valued at least as much on the output from the one as the other.

    Well said.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited August 2020
    Firstly there is no prohibition on arguing pro-life positions here. You don’t have to like them but we won’t stop them. Misogyny is another matter. And if you think all or any pro life positions are misogynistic any of us may feel free to argue that here or if necessary in the Styx.

    Secondly, seeing the scripture Enoch quoted as applying exclusively to men is arguable but far too literal for me. For man read mortal and adjust pronouns accordingly. If you think I’m wrong, bite me.

    Thirdly, the scripture from the New Testament is essentially an emphasis on the meaning of Commandments 1 and 2 in the OT. But Jesus is speaking to believers about that emphasis. If you sign up to serve God by following Jesus you’d better not put any idolatrous object of worship such as a career in front of that. You endanger your soul by so doing. So men who put their career in front of serving God, should there be a clash, are just as guilty as women who do that. Or any other gender. Pursuit of a career may indeed be a way of serving God but when push comes to shove remember who comes first. And it ain’t you. So says Jesus.

    Fourthly the scripture seems to me to have no direct connection with the often vexed and morally complex issues surrounding the decision to have an abortion. I suppose the most one could argue is that if you are a believer it might be one of the factors you might take into consideration but it seems very presumptuous to assume that in any particular case the decision to have an abortion was based either on belief or purely on career aspirations.

    So the scripture is of very limited relevance in this discussion, or so it seems to me as a Shipmate.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    The only 100%, absolutely and completely* effective method is abstention, not the most attractive of courses.

    *Add any further if you wish.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    The only 100%, absolutely and completely* effective method is abstention, not the most attractive of courses.

    *Add any further if you wish.

    That would be for both the men and the women. One of the things that drives me to distraction about these discussions is that it's always about what the woman should do ... As if we magically get pregnant by wandering about in the fresh air in possession of a womb.

    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions. Like taking responsibility for contraception, campaigning for decent childcare, a state system that supports parents properly and doesn't penalise people having kids.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions.

    Did we not just try to have a whole thread on that very topic in Epiphanies? And it got canned, because you can't discuss men's roles and responsibilities in Epiphanies?
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I'm flagging up that whether some shipmates like it or not, the traditional view,
    Pretty much only true if you are RCC. or your view of "traditional" is fairly short.
    But even if yours were a perfectly accurate statement, that doesn't make it correct.

    And as mentioned, sport is a job. If men's careers were put on hold (or ended) by childbirth, abortion would be legal, paid for and not would never have ben a fight to begin with.

  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Thirdly, the scripture from the New Testament is essentially an emphasis on the meaning of Commandments 1 and 2 in the OT. But Jesus is speaking to believers about that emphasis. If you sign up to serve God by following Jesus you’d better not put any idolatrous object of worship such as a career in front of that. You endanger your soul by so doing. So men who put their career in front of serving God, should there be a clash, are just as guilty as women who do that.

    Yes but in realistic terms who are getting called out for being careerist? How many sermons are preached about men pursuing a career versus women "working outside the home"? It's all well and good to say "all careerism matters" but it's clear that some matters more than others.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »

    That would be for both the men and the women. One of the things that drives me to distraction about these discussions is that it's always about what the woman should do ... As if we magically get pregnant by wandering about in the fresh air in possession of a womb.

    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions. Like taking responsibility for contraception, campaigning for decent childcare, a state system that supports parents properly and doesn't penalise people having kids.

    I thought that abstention in this context would have included the male partner.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »

    That would be for both the men and the women. One of the things that drives me to distraction about these discussions is that it's always about what the woman should do ... As if we magically get pregnant by wandering about in the fresh air in possession of a womb.

    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions. Like taking responsibility for contraception, campaigning for decent childcare, a state system that supports parents properly and doesn't penalise people having kids.

    I thought that abstention in this context would have included the male partner.

    The women in the article I referenced are in relationships so I doubt abstention is a reasonable option.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    If they are in relationships, abstention is as easy an option as if they are not.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    If they are in relationships, abstention is as easy an option as if they are not.

    Err. Not in a healthy relationship it's not.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    If they are in relationships, abstention is as easy an option as if they are not.

    When I wasn't in a relationship with anyone, I found it very easy not to have sex with a person that wasn't there. Abstinence wasn't at all difficult.

    When you and your loved one are in the same place together, I venture to suggest that abstaining from sex with them is much more difficult.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Gee D wrote: »
    If they are in relationships, abstention is as easy an option as if they are not.

    When I wasn't in a relationship with anyone, I found it very easy not to have sex with a person that wasn't there. Abstinence wasn't at all difficult.

    When you and your loved one are in the same place together, I venture to suggest that abstaining from sex with them is much more difficult.

    Exactly, though perhaps not as difficult as it is for the person you are abstaining from. I mean, "Darling, I love you, but can we not have sex for the next ten years while I pursue my sporting career?" Is not going to fly with most guys.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    BBC Women's Sport Survey: How decisions on abortion and starting a family affect female athletes is an interesting read. The issues are stark here as athletes can't simply take a career break and return to their previous position. They miss events and lose fitness while out and of course a sporting career does not last long. Plus the focus on doping in sport and testing athletes means the contraceptive pill comes with unforeseen complications. So what else can they do?

    Condoms? IUD?

    Not 100% effective.

    The only 100%, absolutely and completely* effective method is abstention, not the most attractive of courses.

    *Add any further if you wish.

    That would be for both the men and the women. One of the things that drives me to distraction about these discussions is that it's always about what the woman should do ... As if we magically get pregnant by wandering about in the fresh air in possession of a womb.

    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions. Like taking responsibility for contraception, campaigning for decent childcare, a state system that supports parents properly and doesn't penalise people having kids.

    On a related point, it is notable that the women’s decisions in that article are being impacted by the prevalent expectation of little support for a decision to have a baby, by members of their sport. Which I think is sad, and something those sports should be addressing.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    If they are in relationships, abstention is as easy an option as if they are not.

    When I wasn't in a relationship with anyone, I found it very easy not to have sex with a person that wasn't there. Abstinence wasn't at all difficult.

    When you and your loved one are in the same place together, I venture to suggest that abstaining from sex with them is much more difficult.

    Exactly, though perhaps not as difficult as it is for the person you are abstaining from. I mean, "Darling, I love you, but can we not have sex for the next ten years while I pursue my sporting career?" Is not going to fly with most guys.

    As an aside to the main point under discussion I'd like to point out that abstaining from penetrative sex is not the same thing as not having sex at all!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    MrsBeaky wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    If they are in relationships, abstention is as easy an option as if they are not.

    When I wasn't in a relationship with anyone, I found it very easy not to have sex with a person that wasn't there. Abstinence wasn't at all difficult.

    When you and your loved one are in the same place together, I venture to suggest that abstaining from sex with them is much more difficult.

    Exactly, though perhaps not as difficult as it is for the person you are abstaining from. I mean, "Darling, I love you, but can we not have sex for the next ten years while I pursue my sporting career?" Is not going to fly with most guys.

    As an aside to the main point under discussion I'd like to point out that abstaining from penetrative sex is not the same thing as not having sex at all!

    I'm surprised that you're the first person on this thread to reach the conclusion I did.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions.

    Did we not just try to have a whole thread on that very topic in Epiphanies? And it got canned, because you can't discuss men's roles and responsibilities in Epiphanies?

    You can have that conversation in Purg.

    Louise's masterful post sums many things up for me though.

    A little context ... The majority of people I know who are actively anti-abortion are men. They've plenty to say about what women should and shouldn't do with their bodies and their responsibilities.

    I have never - that's never, ever - heard one of them talk about men's responsibilities or what happens after baby is born. When it's been raised, they've looked a bit surprised and then carried on talking about women. I can't remember which woman said that if men got pregnant, abortion would be freely available and on-demand but she was definitely on to something. It's one of the reasons I never take part in these kind of discussions. Being lectured by people who will never have to take that decision and act like it's all nothing to do with them at all gets really exhausting.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    MrsBeaky wrote: »

    As an aside to the main point under discussion I'd like to point out that abstaining from penetrative sex is not the same thing as not having sex at all!

    Agreed. But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    I just don't think the abstinence argument is ever a practical one.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen anyone here talk about what men can do to limit the number of abortions.

    Did we not just try to have a whole thread on that very topic in Epiphanies? And it got canned, because you can't discuss men's roles and responsibilities in Epiphanies?
    Yeah, but no. Not even close.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm flagging up that whether some shipmates like it or not, the traditional view, taken for granted virtually universally until very recently would have been that an abortion so that having a baby wouldn't interfere with one's sporting career would betoken a sense of priorities that was a denial of a lot of what many people would advocate as 'normal and decent human values'. That would have been largely independent of a person's view on the core question whether abortion was sometimes ethically permissible or never was.

    Is having children and populating the earth a 'normal and decent human value'?

    Maybe that started changing when people woke up to the fact that the earth has got quite enough population as it is, and is rather struggling to cope.

    It also probably started changing once people were no longer in the situation where it was highly likely at least some of their children would die before growing up.

    It also, of course, has been shown to change to some degree once women are given education and other options and roles besides functioning as mothers. And that includes the possibility of having a sporting career. The traditional 'normal and decent human value' comes from a time when it was simply inconceivable that a woman would go on playing sport seriously once she had a man. So to the extent that you are arguing there's been a change in priorities, you're wrong because the question simply never came up back then.

  • MrsBeaky wrote: »

    As an aside to the main point under discussion I'd like to point out that abstaining from penetrative sex is not the same thing as not having sex at all!

    Agreed. But we are looking at abstaining from penetrative sex for the entire duration of the woman's sporting career!

    I just don't think the abstinence argument is ever a practical one.
    And that will potentially affect any relationship the athlete might be in.
    It is all bullshit and a conversation we would not be having if men could get pregnant.
Sign In or Register to comment.