Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Yes there is, when one extreme is condoned or even encouraged by scripture.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-proselytization.html

Atheist have no such codified commandment. If an atheist is militant it's probably from having experienced prejudice from theists. Simple.

I am one of those, and if some religious fanatic comes to me and tells me that I "need saving", I tell him to go "to hell".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are people immoral if they have sex for fun and end up having an abortion? Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice'

Having sex for fun is not a crime, but is a sin
Killing a person in the name of god is a crime, but not a sin

Suppose that god is telling a female who is pregnant as a result of sinful sex fun to get rid of that abomination, is having that abortion a sin?
And if the counter argument is that a fetus is not an abomination but an innocent soul, then why are we "born in sin"? Could it be that forcing the mother to give birth to children conceived in sin is the reason why we all are now "born in sin" (with sinful souls)?

What we have then is that abortion for a "sufficient" reason is neither a crime, nor a sin......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Problem solved. Everybody is happy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my dads found the best answer to do you believe in god is how many and which ones

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Swish.
Kind of interesting how the OP goes out of its way to talk about morality and not religion .... and our resident fervent atheists trip over themselves with their waffle about God.

 

society enforces population size by its own values of culture.
though, this only happens once you remove the bulk of infant, child & maternal mortality while raising the standard of living.
this counter sets the population growth by investing more value in each child.
most countrys that have very high birth rates have a very low value on human life.

the anti-contraceptive cults use this as reverse psychology to try and exploit human weakness.

 

the first actual religious argume is rainbow at post 66 after seti used multiple phrasing that the religious use when discussing abortion. not to mention its a logical inference because opposition to abortion are extremely correlated.

 

The context in which that is most effectively true generally escapes most people. Nor are you wrong wrong about another aspect—

—but, rather, slightly incomplete.

Poverty is also a manner of population control, and while the point about high birth rates and low value on human life is well taken, not only does our society cull populations with wars abroad, but one of our filthy not-secrets is that we leave veterans who gave in war to die on our streets. Say what we will about will or indifference, but in addition to the wars are the embargoes, and, the enforced scarcity and poverty that feeds my society's affluence. Firestone in Liberia, for instance. However many oil companies in Nigeria. I know, it sounds weird, but remember how much Americans worry about elderly people being expensive. Lower the quality of life enough, a society avoids much of that problem. True, poverty lends to higher reproduction, but we have a lost-generation problem we're not talking much about as a society, among black and brown males; there is a maternal mortality crisis going on among black women, and that's not counting the other maternal crisis in which DV is slaying pregnant black women. Consider, also, the values of a society that just did Puerto Rico that way. One of the reasons HIV/AIDS crisis in the U.S. reached the scale it did is because President Reagan, believing it a gay disease, didn't feel like doing anything substantial about it. To the other, some small part of my area's population saw prolonged life because back in the day, our cities helped pioneer American needle exchanges for intravenous drug addicts; when other communities argued for needle exchanges, they cited massive estimates, like 1.1 million HIV transmissions disrupted, about the program in Pierce County (Tacoma & environs), Washington. Our societal values include cigarette companies, asbestos, and the rest of the world needs to pay attention to what we do with radioactive waste to understand why so many Americans don't want nuclear power. Our healthcare and retirement programs are designed primarily for the purposes of collecting profit. All of these things, and more, reflect our values and contribute to population growth rates.

At this point we're describing values in an anthropological context compared to politics; next to the debacle of the Trump presidency, even Robert Mugabe's infamous extended tenure over Zimbabwe still qualifies as metaphorical weather compared to special° climate; nations come and go, but the human endeavor persists.

As with the real weather and climate, controlling the weather is difficult enough, so it's probably more useful to consider how not to disrupt climate trends even more severely than we have.

And, to the other, your note is an obscure answer of uncertain effect on the strange rabbit hole↑ it considers.
____________________

Notes:

° The obscure pronuciation and definition: Of or relating to species; for our purposes, the longer-term trends and living endeavor of Homo sapiens sapiens, collectively, and whatever it might become.

 

Since the vast majority of the pro-life movement is religious, it was inevitable the the OP’s religious beliefs would come into question, and he did acknowledge his religious affiliation. That said, the OP did not, and needed not use that affiliation to philosophically justify his notion of life or personhood at conception.

Believe it or not, there are atheist who hold those views as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

 

Then they are just as ignorant of "conception" as theists in that respect.

Except they are not counted on the population census. There is no funeral if the fertilized egg is aborted spontaneously.

And if a fertilized egg does not develop but still gets flushed, the mother cannot be charged with "homicide" of any kind. The mother cannot make objections to nature's own term limits, whether she wants to or not. This lack of remedy illustrates the futility of assigning personhood to a developing mitotic cell pattern.

May I remind that when we eat a fertilized chicken egg we call it an omelette.

There is only one inalienable autonomous right of all females and that is the decision to procreate or not. This is a timeless natural right and cannot be morally superceeded by any artificial human law.

The female controls the future in all species. She is the one able to conceive. She really doesn't need a male at all. Females pro-create, males create variety, no more, no less.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2001/07/egg-fertilized-without-sperm

 

Carlin:
q: do you believe in god? No?........... Boom, you're dead.
q; do you believe in god? Yes? Do you believe in my god? No? ................ Boom, you're dead.

All religions have made war in the name of their God(s). Taking turns against each other. Millions of people......
History does not show a kind face on the benevolence of religion, and rightfully so, IMO.

 

LOL, just a musing. A philosophical conundrum.
Which religion is the more benevolent, the religion which prohibited sex via the Inquisition, or the religion which encouraged sex via the Kama Sutra.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am not quite sure if the reverse is not a better analogy. Countries with high death rates as in the deserts and tropics require a high birth rate to maintain balance. Life can be valued , but environment dictates behavior.

 

It has nothing to do necessarily with ignorance, it’s more of philosophically where one chooses to establish the beginning of a life or person. All human beings originate as a zygote or fertilized egg, that zygote if properly nurtured will developed into a more functional human being. If you deny a nurturing environment to a zygote, it dies. The same applies to a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, and to children from birth to self sufficiency. So by that standard, for some the first stage of a human being is considered to begin at conception.

That’s not to say that there couldn’t be if parents were aware of the event.

Nor would a woman be charged with homicide if mother nature claimed a toddler from a fatal disease. People at any stage of life can be defined as a given pattern of cells.

And the pig we kill for the bacon to go with that omelette is more physiologically advanced than a newborn child.

Nothing is inalienable in human existence, the rights we enjoy in a given society are products of social agreement.

Well until women can be engineered to reproduce asexually, or synthetic sperm is used to fill the sperm banks, the male will still be essential to the equation of reproduction.

 

OK, human males have a right to pro-create without women. Good luck.
Human females have the ability to pro-create without men. As in the Silvery Salamander.

https://www.inhs.illinois.edu/collections/herps/data/ilspecies/am_platine/

Its already done in nature but only for the female and a few species which can switch sex. Males cannot procreate, their only function is to provide variety to the species., an evolutionary advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

 

Presently a woman could carry an engineered egg cell of her own or donor DNA to term in order to procreate asexually. But since we're talking about human beings, either sex could conceivably enslave the other in order to accomplish reproduction, essentially becoming livestock for the purpose of breeding. This is pretty much what we see in a pride of lions, where the males dominate the females for the purpose of food acquisition and breeding.

 

Returning for a moment to the question in the thread title, relying on abortion as the method of contraception during sex is, in my view, very irresponsible and thus immoral. Even if done at a very early stage, abortion can be traumatic for the woman and there is a risk of damage from the procedure. There is no excuse for relying on abortion when so many easy and trouble-free methods of contraception are readily available.

I once had a girlfriend who had had an abortion at 21 and the damage to her cervix meant she was told she would have great difficulty sustaining a pregnancy subsequently. She became quite depressed and troubled with guilt about it. There was in that case a happy ending in that she did succeed in having a baby ultimately. But until then she lived a subconsciously risky sex life, probably half hoping to get pregnant. It messed with her head considerably.

 

The word "possibly" and the condition "relying on", between them, slide over central issues.

"Guilt"?

What, exactly, does "it" refer to in that sentence?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for distraction.​

There's kind of a funny story about that, and it's better to leave that aside, because the proverbial morals of the story have to do with other people who are not you. The inevitability and acknowledgment you refer to occur in a context no longer effective.

To wit—

—it was implicit in a particular manner no longer applicable. The actual what that happened, as noted, doesn't have to do with you, which, to the upside, means one less aspect of consideration or dispute for you to carry through the discussion.

As to the more substantial issue:

This is one of those aspects that ought to be simple but can get complicated really fast.

First, you are correct, theistically religious argument is not required to "justify" a "notion of life or personhood at conception".

The example you provide, however, is an organization of small but unknown number, and, honestly, to take it from the founder, they're vapid nearly to the Poe threshold:

The abortion industry would have you believe that people like me do not exist. They would have you believe that the pro-life movement is almost exclusively old white men, with a few pearl-clutching church ladies thrown in. This characterization is insulting to both young and old. The older pro-life leaders of today are the pioneering young adult activists of the 1970s, who courageously dissented from Roe v. Wade. And they have recruited new generations of pro-lifers to follow in their footsteps; millennials in the movement call ourselves the “pro-life generation.”

There are important differences between the millennial generation and those that came before. One of the biggest is religion. The well-reported decline in church attendance is driven largely by young adults. Over a third of millennials tell pollsters they have no religious affiliation, compared with 23 percent for Generation X and 17 percent for baby boomers. And even among millennials who have maintained a religious affiliation, many favor same-sex marriage and show less appetite for the “culture war” than their elders do.

Yet this more secular generation still shows up to save preborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion. This puzzles some abortion supporters, who had assumed they would benefit from demographic changes. The key to understanding this discrepancy is to realize that it is not a discrepancy at all: We see abortion not as a culture war issue or as a religious issue but as a human rights issue.

(Hazzard↱)​

The problem is there is no evolution of the argument. It's not even a sleight in the manner of "Intelligent Design" unto "Creationism"; it's merely an ostensible atheist appropriating religious arguments and omitting God; the whole thing is so much an anti-identification the author even makes sure to take a swing at the religious audience she is pandering to in America, a.k.a., The Jesuit Review. Additionally, the affiliated Equal Rights Institute receives considerable funding from Christian churches and some from Republicans. Additionally, she has worked with Americans United for Life, whose current president is known to appear on Christian-network television. As a pro-life atheist, Kelsey Hazzard of Secular Pro-Life seems to spend most of her time talking to religious allies, not carrying her advocacy to others. A note of personal aesthetics does go here: While enterprise websites tend to get formulaic, there is something about conservative political websites, and in this case we might think back to the Republican primary in 2016, because the candidates had identical websites, and that model persists in conservative media spheres; in that context I did notice that even AUL's website looks just like ERI's, which looks just like SPL's. None of this is surprising, but it does lend to a suggestion that Hazzard is just working a well-known epistemic bubble, and in that case, no, SPL is probably not an example evangelical atheists would be pleased to answer for.

We can disdain religious claims of ultimate authority in effect all we want, but at least Christianist, for instance, aesthetic demands have an identifiable root. Hazzard and SPL, by contrast, simply appropriate religious appeals to emotion and aesthetic and apply minimalist cosmetic changes. It's one thing to recall, as I have, the pathetic attempt to transform "Creationism" into "Intelligent Design", but this isn't even that. This is lazy. More effort is put into accommodating religious audiences than devising a rational argument against abortion. Or, more directly, the effort is to accommodate religious audiences, because that is an easier way to get paid than figuring out a demonstrable, rational argument to support cosmetically rebranded religious aesthetics.

Hazzard's "secular" arguments are rehashes of religious political advocacy. One interesting exampl;e is attending SPL's attempt↱ to parse their opposition to abortion:

The Mission of Secular Pro-Life is to end elective abortion.*

‡​

* While SPL considers every abortion a tragedy, we recognize that abortion is sometimes medically necessary. We do not oppose abortion in situations where the mother's life is in danger and early delivery is not possible. We also do not take a specific stance on the rape exception, leaving the discussion open amongst our members.​

They initially clarify because they are pitching to the religious, and must justify the use of the word "elective", but just like the intersection of GOP and evangelical Christianist politicking—i.e., SPL's audience and financial supporters—it turns out these ostensible atheists aren't up to resolving a position on forcing raped women to bear the children of their rapist. It's one of the most important footnotes I've encountered in a while.

I'm not a fan of particular forms of comparison when the accompanying contrasts are so influential, so, no, for example, "house infidel" really is inappropriate for being inflammatory along multiple vectors. It does, however, provide a particular contrast: To the one, it's a way to get paid while expressing oneself, and there are, by such perspectives, far worse jobs to have in this world, but that makes for a very cynical critique, but neither is the point that telling supremacists what they want to hear can make for profitable work anything new. To the other, though, if you let people keep talking, they eventually tell you the truth. Around here, for instance, that happens quite a lot; and no, it's not just you.

Nor is that last specifically intended as a jab. It's true, I did just rake you on this count, but looking through the iterations of Hazzard's endeavor, I'm reminded of something I said in another thread, though neither do we yet know the tale of Hazzard's atheism. Still, in a question of atheism, sin, and Calvinism, I suggested↱ a convert has gone from former conditioning to responding to that former conditioning in such a manner as to weirdly fulfill it. Additionally, I noted a moral code she described is as relativist as it sounds, and while relativism is not in and of itself damned or damnable, as such, this is precisely what [her] predecessors, the Calvinist heritage, fear. And there are, of course, deeper considerations to it, but that author is telling the truth in a way that suggests she doesn't seem to know any better; part of the problem is a marketplace question at least somewhat akin to blaming society, and to some degree greater explication by the accomplished author will help clarify her point, but it is also possible to keep talking and blow it all up by reasserting underlying, often subconscious, priorities.

Similarly, Hazzard's advocacy seems more oriented toward reconciling her own perspective with a religious audience, and while there is certainly a capital or commerce question we might suggest, we might wonder if, as she keeps talking, the underlying priorities will reinforce that appearance or offer a key to understanding how this part does anything other than denigrate rational discourse in such a manner as to verge up to a Poe's Law threshold. The largest effect of SPL's approach to rape and pregnancy is its pretense to legitimize aesthetics and appeals to emotion as rational counterpoints to valid and reliable data.

And, yeah, since you mentioned it, SPL isn't really a good example of anything other than someone hanging a shingle, as such.
____________________

Notes:

Hazzard, Kelsey. "The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights". America. 19 )ctober 2017. AmericaMagazine.org. 1 March 2019. http://bit.ly/2VupIhi

Secular Pro-Life. "Mission & Vision". 2013. SecularProLife.org. 1 March 2019. http://bit.ly/2XtBk5T

 

The experience of having an abortion (on her 21st birthday, as it happened).

And yes, guilt. That is what she felt, poor girl. I met her a couple of years later and she was quite unhappy.

 

personal anecdote:
I've known 3 women who had abortions and they all regretted it.
2 were/are childless
(I don't know about the third)