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

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Feb 12, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    If it's deliberate, it is, IMO. It's called "spin" and is dishonest. Fox commentators are experts at this technique.
     
    Beer w/Straw likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Of course it is. Why do you ask?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SetiAlpha6:

    In the abortion situation, there are two "others" involved: the mother and the unborn child. I am interested: in what circumstances, if any, would you preference protecting the life of the mother over the life of the child, if you had to make the choice?

    Also, what is your reasoning behind preferencing a foetus's life over the life of an adult women, seeing as you apparently do that by default?

    Great! What does that have to do with abortion?

    Hmm... I'm not sure that the woman who has 12 children due to the unavailability of birth control would necessarily agree with you. You're not offering to look after all the blessed children. You expect the mothers to do that, while denying them a choice in the matter.

    Then how can you blame people for following their God-given instincts and wanting to participate in this super fun and beautiful activity, even though it might risk an unwanted pregnancy? Shouldn't God have anticipated the problem in advance? Shouldn't God have made sex super-fun only when it was intended for procreation? Why didn't he do that?

    Tell me who is willing to kill their own children to get sex.

    Do you consider it an act of love to deprive women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies?

    I agree. Murdering children is bad. I don't think you'll find anybody here who wants to murder children.

    There's a lot of misconception hidden in that word "only" that you wrote there. Okay, so let's run with it and assume that human beings are "only" biochemical robots. We are apparently biochemical robots who can love, who can live, who can create meaning for ourselves. What more do you want?

    I don't understand how your God gives you meaning that you wouldn't otherwise have. Can you explain?

    There's a separate thread on this topic that you might like to read.

    Your argument, presumably, is that the only kind of free will worth having is supernatural free will. Correct?

    I see. Tell me how this Soul can interact with the material world, such as to determine how your physical body acts, for instance. Also, please tell me how we can recognise the difference between soulless creatures and ones with souls. These questions are only the tip of a very large iceberg.

    Slime mold and bacteria are nowhere near as complicated as humans, in purely physical terms. Add complexity and you get more complex behaviour. Not so hard to understand, is it?

    The theory of evolution never said that the complexity of life arose by chance. If you think that's what it says, you're missing half the theory.

    I see. Your argument is "It's obvious!" Or rather, you're telling us that because it is not obvious to you how free will could come from a deterministic naturalistic universe, you simply assume that it does not do so.

    Quantum physics provides a good counter-example to your claim.

    What does it do, separately from nature? Please explain. And the previous question: how does it interact to make anything happen in nature, if it is separate?

    You have yet to make an argument as to why determinism precludes free will.

    Evolution depends on two things: variation and selection. Variation occurs randomly. Selection mechanisms are very much non-random.

    You sound like you think determinism is a bad thing. Can you explain why?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SetiAlpha6:

    Allow me to present an alternative perspective, for your consideration.

    The Genesis account is a myth.

    In the beginning, there were a bunch of chemicals floating in a primordial sea. They came together due to natural chemical affinities, thus creating life on Earth. Natural evolutionary processes caused the primitive life forms to evolve to greater and greater complexity. Life eventually migrated out of the oceans onto land, and further evolved, eventually resulting in the existence of many human beings who diverged from earlier primate ancestors.

    Human beings created their own moral codes, along with religions. This did not require the intervention of a God.

    Life is a natural struggle. Human beings compete with one another, and with other life, and with the environment, in order to eke out a living for themselves. Humans demonstrably do not "rule" the world, as many forces on the planet are beyond current human ability to control or influence, even though human beings, in their billions, now have great influence over many aspects of the planet on which we live.

    The length of a human life is tied to certain genetic traits that have evolved. In a sense, it appears likely that humans, along with other forms of life, have a built-in (evolved) life expectancy, although in the future we might well find ways to alter ourselves so as to remove or reduce that limitation. The limited human life span has nothing to do with any hissy fit thrown by a God who couldn't brook disobedience from his underlings.

    The difficulty of living on Earth has no necessary connection to any God. It is more about limited resources and powers.

    There is no collective guilt of the whole of humanity. There never has been. Children are not born tainted by some "original sin" of Adam's; they are born innocent.

    We know what is right through experience, instruction and socialisation, as well as having certain in-built moral intuitions that we have inherited because they have proven to be evolutionarily successful. God need not be involved.

    There is no "evil", only evil acts. Similarly, there is no "sin", because sin is disobedience to the will of an imagined God.

    The gospels were all written by people. They are part of the legacy of human literature, nothing more.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Are you saying you refuse to accept the science because you think that doing so would amount to rebellion against your God?

    Yes, evolution is an attempt to explain the existence of (the diversity of) life without invoking God. That's what scientific theories do: they try to explain stuff without invoking the supernatural.

    And you know what? The theory of evolution works as advertised, very well, and all without mentioning God even once.

    How did you go about estimating the probabilities? Do you realise that, in trying to estimate the probabilities (of it happening by chance) you are actually adopting a scientific attitude? Aren't you afraid your God will strike you down for your act of rebellion? You're not supposed to consider the idea that maybe life started without God. Or so you say.

    Doesn't it take faith to believe that life can come from Special Creation by God? I'd say that requires quite a bit more faith than the alternative.

    Sorry, you lost me. One minute you were talking about evolution, and the next you moved on to moral implications of something or other. The theory of evolution isn't a theory of morality. Evolution teaches mankind nothing about morality.*

    Are you still talking about the theory of evolution?

    There is no "human experience" of the beginning of life on Earth. No humans were around at the time to see it. There is also no recorded history of the event, for the same reason.

    It's a good thing that evolution by natural selection is not a chance mechanism, then, isn't it?

    Oh, I see. You're under the impression that abiogenesis could only be a chance process, if your God doesn't exist. What about the laws of chemistry? Do you think those might affect the chances of chemicals coming together in particular ways, for instance? Or is chemistry random, according to you?

    And in Religious Education classes, as I'm sure you'll agree.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I admit I have no complete explanation at this time.

    But I'm interested. When scientists do create life in the lab, what will you do? Will you give up your belief in Genesis then? Will you stop believing in your God all together? Or will you just tweak what you believe and come up with a different excuse for preferring your religion over science?

    I'm quite serious. It sounds like you have a lot invested in this question of the origin of life. If it turns out you're wrong about this, and life can come from non-life after all, without your God's intervention, what will you do? How will that understanding alter your faith? Or won't it make any difference at all?

    You're right that society has a long way to go towards "protecting" women, and according due respect and equality.

    I agree. This is why we as a society need to rethink in some fundamental ways how we structure work and family etc. It's a big task, and progress is very slow.

    The vast majority of legal abortions do not injure women.

    It can also lead to feelings of relief and happiness.

    Why would you want to dictate what a woman can choose regarding her own life and her own body?

    That's what this question boils down to, for you religious types. Tell us why you feel the need to have control over women, their sexuality and their reproduction? Also tell us what you believe gives you that right of control.

    ---
    * Having said that, it does point towards the notion that certain notions of morality might promote survival more successfully than certain alternative notions of morality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    The beauty is that this natural function has practical uses for human consumption. We have and are applying the principles of evolution (selection for desirable traits) in a host of activities designed for human comforts.

    Farm animals, pets, grains, fruits, all the products we see in the matket today are artificially evolved, "selected" out from their wild ancestors to the commercial products we see today.
    Dogs are evolved from wolves, and "selected" for all kinds of entertainment or practical purposes.
    Grains are hybrid grains, "selected" for yield and climate hardiness.
    Many fruits are hybrids from intentional crossbreeding.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Usually, the fundies are prepared to acknowledge artificial selection (e.g. selective breeding), where human beings choose what is allowed to breed. But for some reason*, they struggle with the idea that any natural process could "choose" what breeds successfully and what does not.

    Darwin, in On the Origin of Species, made his case carefully by walking readers through artificial selection before introducing the idea of natural selection.

    The more sophisticated fundies, realising that they can't completely deny natural selection, instead try to draw an artificial line that natural selection supposedly can't cross. The favorite place to do that is at the species boundary. That is, the fundies admit there can be natural variation within a species, but they deny - for no defensible reason - that the variation can ever be enough to create a new species.

    Even more sophisticated fundies allow variation within a "kind", so that wolves can evolve into dogs, for instance. They can't ever tell us what a "kind" is though - cleverly they leave it vague enough that the goalposts can be shifted whenever new inconvenient scientific evidence comes to light that would tend to refute speciation across the notional boundaries of a "kind".

    It's quite a feat of mental gymnastics that they go through in order to defend against what they consider is a threat to their religion.

    ---
    * One rationalisation leads to the idea that a conscious, intelligent agent must do the choosing. This is an attractive idea to some fundamentalists, who then try to insert God as the required "intelligent designer" in processes otherwise explainable by natural selection.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Do you know how we can tell the difference between a stem-cell and a baby?
    Lets ask the question how we store stem-cells. We put them in the freezer!
    When you go on vacation you wanna stick your baby in the freezer for the duration? That's how you tel the difference.
    This is indicative of the ignorance or duplicity of "kneejerk responses" like, "the jury is still out" and "misuse of scientific knowledge". How about misuse of the English language?

    When you say the jury is "no longer out" it means that a verdict has been rendered.

    Sorry, Muska, you can't have it both ways.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    This morning I debated whether I should drive my car today, knowing that it might possibly lead to an accident that kills me.
     
  13. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Hearts Grow Cold as they Grow Hardened by their own Sin.

    Men and Women on the payrolls of Abortion clinics across the land need clients to make their living as they kill the innocents by the millions.

    They know their contraception methods fail, but they sell them for their own profit anyway.

    And every time they do fail their own coffers are filled from the very ones they failed to love and protect.

    Love is replaced by Lust in the hearts of many.

    People act like the animals that Evolution tells them they are. They are only accidents after all.

    Murder of the innocents for the Sins of the guilty, has become acceptable, common place, and even celebrated by some in the government of the United States. Openly celebrating the ability to murder the innocents.

    They even laugh at those that oppose them.

    We are a threat you know?

    They see no Sin in what they have done.

    Mothers hire others to kill their own children in secret, so the family will never know the awful thing they have done.

    If they really think they are doing nothing wrong, why then do they hide it?

    The father has no say, he has no rights whatsoever regarding the fate of his baby. His son or his daughter! He is declared to be forcing her. His heart will be broken because of it, for life! No one cares!

    Guilt is now even declared to be evil.

    The God given intuition of the mother and her natural love for her baby is openly discarded for convenience and even greed.

    Paid counselors, openly counsel mothers to murder their own children calling their baby a fetus instead of what it is, a baby. This is done to deceive them.

    Some women are so deceived or so cold hearted that they feel nothing after they kill their own baby.

    Other mothers suffer for the rest of their lives or even commit suicide because of it.

    Is it really that hard to see that neither of these outcomes is good for the mental state of the mother or the physical state of the baby.

    The United States declares a baby in the womb to be a fetus, a non-human, like the Nazis declared the Jew to be non-human in German society.

    Both justify murder of another human for a selfish purpose.

    Both even frame it as being beneficial for the chosen Aryan, White Race. The more African American and Hispanic babies killed, the better for the elite White classes. This is absolutely wicked to the core.

    Abortion lovers use comparatively rare exceptions, that occur in the thousands, to justify their real goal, abortions at will for any reason in the tens of millions. This is a deliberate deception and miss direction.

    Why not declare the Christian to be non-human so they can be killed at will? Atheism, Naturalism, certainly provides no reason why this could not be done. We are inconvenient, just like all those aborted children anyway!

    And indeed this very thing actually has been done openly in the past by Atheists, causing the deaths of millions.

    I could not even write this without getting sick to my stomach.

    And you, what about you?

    Do you Harden your own heart, make up excuses for your own Sin, and even justify the murder of the innocents by the millions?

    Will you even blame me for trying to say something against this wickedness?

    Oh, come on, you know you want to...

    Go ahead!!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    No one will blame you for arguing in favor of pro-life. People will blame you when you start killing doctors to save an unborn fetus, which does not argue for pro-life at all. Nor does it argue for pro-choice, it argues for murder if you don't get it your way.
     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I don't imagine many people go into a sexual encounter thinking about this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    And people know carseats fail, yet they put their children in them all the time. Cold hearted murdering bastards!
    Some do; most don't.
    Sometimes yes. When a woman is raped and ends up pregnant, sometimes she can't deal with the shame she feels.
    See above.
    See above.
    Yep. Some women are incapable of that. Better for their children that they are either aborted or adopted (preferably adopted.)
    It is done to be accurate.
    Probably. But then again, I've never met an abortion lover, and I doubt you have.
    Nope.

    What about yourself? Will you tell a woman who was raped that she must bear the rapist's child, and then let him have dominion over her and her baby as the Bible requires? Will you tell a woman whose unborn child is already dead that she must risk her life to bring a dead baby into the world? Will you tell a woman that she cannot have a selective reduction to try to maximize the chances of her children being born healthy - or will you condemn them to likely death to satisfy your unfeeling, hateful religious agenda?

    Go ahead, tell us!
     
    Write4U and Michael 345 like this.
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's not wicked, there are no children or mothers involved. Mind your own fucking business.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I think most people go into a sexual encounter thinking about potential pregnancies and how to prevent them. So at least the thought is there. Often they don't think very deeply about potential outcomes and how they will deal with all of them.
     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Of course, but it's wise to have a birth control method in place, and that might be discussed. But, the thread topic just seems odd to me, that a couple would think their only option is to have an abortion, before they have sex.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Agree with you there, although it would be a good idea to at least consider it (i.e. "if I do end up pregnant how am I going to deal with that?")
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Is it broadly different from 'I've decided to take my wife out for a drive in the country without thinking about the consequences of a life-altering vehicle accident?'
     
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    No!

    No!

    No!

    None of these justify the murder of any baby, on demand, for any reason!

    And you know this!

    You know very well, that would be wicked!
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Great! So you will let these women choose whether to have abortions or not. We agree on that.
    Uh - you just said you wouldn't stop the "murders of the babies" listed above.

    I think you are a little conflicted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page