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

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they are if you wish to mentally and emotionally manipulate children.

the devil obviously and that would make you evil and hated by all your family & community.
thats why you must obey all my commands.
says the adult to the child...

(mid life crisis) "whats it all worth and whats the point of it all whoa-is-me"
purpose and self determination supplanted with obedience and blind belief.
...'cult' !

his free will has been over written as a child so he feels deep down inside that he has no free will
'cult'
power & control manipulation and distortion as a child using religion(in this case Christianity).

he needs therapy because he is obliviously questioning things that sit at the very core of his self identity and self worth.

this is one of my main reasons why i oppose religion in schools.
modern society doesn't give guns or cars to small children.
religion is no different

 

I believe you. I assume she then got an abortion and you found that painful. There are two things you could take from that:

1) Avoid having sex with women unless you are married and want kids (or use birth control, or NFP or something similar.) That would be a great outcome; you made a mistake and learned from it. It happens to us all.

2) Women must be forced to do what you want, because otherwise they will get abortions like your girlfriend did and you didn't like that. That would be a poor thing to take away.

 

This.
Anyone old enough to be able to have sex knows that sex makes babies.
If you don't want a baby, don't have sex - unless you're prepared to live with the consequences.

 

injected premis of un controlled loss
creating a hole that can never be filled
then labeling that morality and seeking to batter other people with it as a morality to distract himself from the reality of not being able to control all things.
power & control distortion in childhood.
some things you have to accept you cant control
some things are not your business to control

preserving life and protecting it is not about telling others how to live theirs with their own body as a dictator.

p.s you cant have true love without true freedom
you cant have coerced pretend freedom to pretend that is love
thus telling a women what she should do and attaching love to it is just pure evil
if you can not give her freedom to choose. you do not love her.

its that simple

 

im pro sex(all be it as often & potentially dangerously toxic as the minds of those who participate)
anti church in schools
pro legalization and regulation of prostitution
pro de-criminalization of recreational drugs
pro universal health care
pro freedom of choice to follow a religion or be a member of a group, be it political or religious.

i am anti letting religion control education, science & government.

what i posted is a running synopsis on the psychiatric condition of the person you described(possibly the thread author attempting to inflict his own unresolved feeling of loss onto girls to make himself feel in control and powerful).
i think its wrong.
girls AND women should have domain over their own bodys.

i am also anti FGM & MGM

i am also anti child marriage
i am also anti forced marriage

it is difficult having such moral debates with conservative Americans because they have this 2nd amendment thing and don't have universal health care.
so morally its a HUGE difference
as well as continuing to make prostitution illegal allowing women to be enslaved by it.
the only sane and logical path is to make prostitution legal, regulate it and make it a legitimate business.it removes slavery
removes underage sex workers
it removes most of the drug problems associated with addiction and sex workers.

but... i may as well be shouting to a brick wall(in many cases).

almost forgot, im pro removing marriage licenses out of church control
so governments own the rights to marriage and not any cult or religion.

churches that wish to apply for the right to service marriage licenses should do so in agreement with the moral law of the licensing entity and state.
otherwise it is proselytisation with a government rubber stamp

most people who go about trying to preach anti sex to children and preach anti abortion do so to service their own egos
they wish to pick and choose who they care for and assign suffering to be out of their control even though they promote processes that cause suffering.
its a completely immoral position unless you have morally agreed to slavery
which ... as a matter of interest relates directly to the religious people who promote child marriage

 

I stopped there.

Had to read it again, cause what popped in my mind was: pro universal sex care...

:EDIT:

I also quibbled with the first line. It seeming nuanced that you were a sex pro...

 

Fuck you.

Fuck you.

 

Pregnancies can occur "while on birth control"... an the more responsible participants woud know this an be prepared to take responsibility for ther actions.!!!

 

Good lord, no.

I simply mean take responsibility for one's actions. Sex can lead to babies.

 

Well ... don't. That's kind of my point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I may be sending the wrong message here.

If one is not prepared to deal with potential consequences of an action, one should not engage in the activity.

 

The cause of his "very painful experience" is from bein suduced by a college girl into havin sex (he was suduced... not his fault)... she was on birth control (pills didnt work... not his fault).!!!

Well Ok... he did take responsibility... an seems to have placed it on anythang but himself... an if he had been more responsible his very painful experience woud not have occured;;; that in itself shows at least an implication of irresponsibility on his part.!!!

 

Mod Hat — Notes on the obvious

That's not actually clever enough to be a sleight. Your topic question:

And your fallacious appeal to emotion in #13:

And then you deigned to lecture people on "science" in #48:

You can't have it both ways. That your lecture on "science" skips out on part of itself in order to accommodate your bogus question is glaringly obvious. Asking, "A child could die?" is not scientific, but, rather, pseduoscience for the sake of personal aesthetics and political priority.

As zombie faith goes, this wasn't even a respectable effort. In the end, your proclamation of being "Christian by evidence first and faith second" (#102)↑ is complete nonsense in and of itself; sola fide didn't confuse "Christians" that way ... pretty much ever. Even as a political question, though, the inquiry is somewhat craven. While people who behave in certain ways have their reasons, and sometimes can even tell us, those observing that behavior might well recognize a contiguous, decades-long societal discourse in which one general side can only repeat its fallacies over and over again, having run out of new arguments sometime between thirty-five and forty-six years ago. The underlying argument, when unpacked, as such, runs approximately: "See the world like I do, presuppose everything I do, conclude everything I do, and it will be perfectly clear to you that I am right."

And as to presuppositions, both issues raised in #13 overlook unquestionably apparent general trends; people regularly choose to engage sexual intercourse that can and sometimes does lead to unintended pregnancy; contraceptive decisions are to the participating partners, and there is no stable field at this time for, say, American society to discuss the moral and ethical obligations of the partners as a single unit, such as preventing disease communication 'twixt themselves, or avoiding unintended pregnancies. Unfortunately, history shows rather quite clearly one of the main reasons for that lack is the amount the society invests in accommodating two-bit political aesthetics requiring a pretense of oblivious ignorance. Kind of like AIDS. Mortal terror of HIV does not prevent human beings from engaging risky behavior.

These points remain true regardless of whether such simplistic psychomoral judgment finds root in Christianist, other religious, or even atheistic framework.

Such as it is, the topic question—"Would you ever intentionally choose to live your own life in a way that could seriously hurt or even kill another human being, just because it is fun for you?"—runs near to hostile, nigh on provocation. Compared to observable statistical results, the examples you gave in #13 frame the question as whether a man would ever intentionally choose to live his own life according to the general expectations of his society, which in turn you question as immoral, per the topic title, according to an extraordinarily superficial pretense about sexual behavior, i.e. "a very brief pleasurable sensation from your nerve endings" (#13). Let us be clear about the topic question: Standard human practice answers so emphatically to the affirmative that anyone answering to the other is not simply a statistical deviation, but, rather, asserting an extraordinary circumstance.

Framed as a political question, though, the topic seems rather quite weak tea. The real complication, however, is trying to pass off personal aesthetics as "science". Misrepresentation is an inappropriate foundation for ethical propositions, especially when invoking "science" that is "well known" and "very clear", as you did in #48, which reads like it's 1986 all over again.

Rehashing the last thirty-three years, at least, all over again isn't going to change the outcome; and then what? Is there a for/next loop on this, or is it just plain goto infinity? Are we supposed to just do it all over again for the next person who "just" asks a few fallacious questions?

And that's the problem: If there is a new argument, then make it. If the point is to line up the same roadworn aesthetic ducks for the sake of flaccid self-satisfaction, i.e., solipsistic moral judgmentalism, then I am hard pressed to understand why people should be expected to endure this exercise in fallacy.

Even still, pretending "science"? That is, in and of itself, unethical.

And I should note, it's not simply, merely, just the last thirty-three years, or thirty-five. It's actually forty-six, or fifty-seven, or one hundred one, or ... or ...or ... I don't know, how about one hundred nine, but at that point we've hopped trains, and I don't feel like riding 2009, right now, to reconnect with in 1762, in order to have another go at 1792, but, sure, we could probably rehash the last two hundred fifty-seven years and accomplish the same trick as if we had just confined ourselves to the last thirty-three, which is utterly wasting our time for the sake of wasting our time because someone else needs us to. But the eighteenth century of the common era is, at least, not the fourth of the prior.

That someone just "asked a few questions" is standard fare, and what challenges belief is the self-denigration, as if there one was, just minding one's own business, just asking a few questions, but having no clue what one is saying. It's a bit people my age remember from childhood cartoons preceding us, which in turn exploited a trope from pulp crime fiction. There really does come a point at which the routine is unbelievable. And invoking "science" in order to justify the ouroboric futility isn't even funny. As I said, pseudoscience is not appropriate for EM&J.

 

So... do you thank that women shoud have the right to have an abortion.???