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

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Feb 12, 2019.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,801
    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 ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,739
    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:
    32,160
    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 at 8:08 AM
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    32,160
    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:
    32,160
    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 at 8:14 AM
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,801
    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:
    32,160
    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 at 2:53 AM
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page