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. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,566
    I agree with most everything you've posted here, James...except, the second sentence of your OP. I'm not suggesting that we ''pretend'' that this rhetoric doesn't exist, but to let someone evangelize, preach, post sexist remarks for 50+ pages...it appears like we're encouraging it to continue. In other words, when a thread starts to resemble a personal blog for a religious member to witness their faith, it can create a slippery slope.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,882
    like being god and being able to just make new life appear as an adult
    but god doesnt
    god gives the power of life or death to the woman
    god does this for a reason to teach man that being accountable for life is more than just being able to choose to kill animals to eat or that endanger man.

    this is why men have no authority in choosing if women should have an abortion or not.

    opposing a woman to choose if she has an abortion is opposing gods will.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,226
    Sounds Wonderful!

    Do they also then abort their own race by the millions so there are no lasting responsibilities or consequences?

    Or are these animals better than us?

    What would scientists think if they came across a group of thousands of them...

    ...where the females, just before birth, use sticks, push them inside themselves, pull out their own babies place them alive on a rock, and then start pulling their arms and legs off, sometimes with the help of males, encouraged by the females of course, then they bash their own babies heads in, to make sure they are really dead!
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,275
    Yes, all mammals do. It's how our reproductive systems work. In humans and most primates, about 50% of pregnancies are naturally aborted.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,808
    You percentages may be on the conservative side.
    https://www.drstandley.com/bodysystems_femalerepro.shtml

    If a woman has 4 children (1%) she will abort 99% of all the matured eggs. Let alone the the waste of 399,996 of the total potential eggs a woman carries. Mass murder?
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,808
    Are these hominids more peaceful than humans? You bet.
    https://www.britannica.com/animal/bonobo

    One researcher noted that the Bonobo can go to sleep, assured that some rival male will not kill him during the night.
    It's not polite.

    That's the result of a matriarchy. Peace and Joy!!!!

    Carlin had it right. God has to be a man, a woman would never screw things up like this .
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,275
    I am talking about embryos. (Or as SA6 calls them, children.) In humans about 40% of them don't implant and are killed. Of the ones that do implant, about 20% end up as miscarriages and are killed. (Most aren't noticed.) This ratio is common throughout the primate world.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,275
    I agree with the above three points, and it sounds like you do, too. So not sure what you are going on about.

    The Bible says explicitly to kill homosexuals. And in case you didn't get how important that was in Leviticus, the end of that passage confirms it - "their blood shall be upon them." No way to misinterpret Leviticus 20:13 as anything else.

    Fortunately, most (as in 99.99%) of Christians ignore that particular Biblical law. Not because it's unclear, or because "maybe they meant kill gay donkeys, not gay people" or because a later Biblical amendment says "Leviticus 20:13 is hereby repealed" - but because they choose to disregard that clear requirement. Good for them! They are moral people.
    So "it's true, but we shouldn't admit it because there are crazy people out there." I can see that logic - but I disagree. I prefer the truth.
    Yes, yes they do. And Leviticus says to kill gays. And Jesus says to follow the Law (i.e. Leviticus) and to not deviate from it - even a tiny bit. That does not mean, of course, you have to do any of that. But it does mean that you have to ignore what the Bible (and specifically Jesus) says on occasion if you want to live a moral life.
     
  12. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,192
    I've tried to ignore this thread. But now that it's plopped like a hideous turd into the 'Religion' forum (it isn't really a religious thread, it's more of a metaethical thread, though metaethics will likely go over everyone's head)...

    Worded that way, I would morally condemn it. I instinctively recoil from gratuitous murder, thrill killing. (Perhaps I have too robust a sense of compassion.)

    Of course in the case of abortion, we have two competing axiomatic moral premises in conflict:

    1. Unborn babies (even wording it that way might be tendentious, I see JamesR favors "fetus") are indeed human beings such that killing them is murder.

    versus...

    2. Pregnancy and child-bearing are things that exclusively concern particular female bodies and women should have absolute sovereignty over their own bodies.

    I don't think that I entirely accept either one of those as initial premises. Nor do I know how either one can be conclusively justified in any scientific sense. (Hume's is/ought question arises.) Both are basically matters of personal feeling and intuition, not only about how we should behave ourselves, but about how others should behave as well.

    It's ironic how people rail against other people's religious intuitions, while they wear their own moral intuitions on their sleeves, intuitions which are no more justifiable than religious faith. (How do I know that your view is morally wrong?? It just feels wrong to me!! If you continue to defend it, you should be banned from Sciforums for Thought-crime and the thread should be closed and cesspooled!!) That's how it too often goes....

    Reminds me of blasphemy laws.

    So why should some people's moral intuitions be privileged over others? Why should moral intuitions be privileged over religious intuitions?
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,808
    Just as advocated in Scripture? I agree!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yep, keep the young virgins for your use.

    .........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,808
    Moral institutions proscribe and enforce laws. Controlling morals gives control over populations.
     
  15. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    Yeah... quite the conundrum... especialy for one wit a such "robust sinse of compassion"... an no dout you wont be able to answr... but to cut to the chase... in you'r own mind... who do you thank best to make the decision to abort or not... the female who is pregnant... or you... or perhaps sombody else who "thanks" like you.???
     
  16. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,566
    Most Christians believe that the New Testament offered a new covenant and Christians are not bound by OT laws. Jesus didn’t advocate for homosexuals, adulterers, etc to be killed as what was once the laws followed in the OT. I don’t think it’s a matter of overlooking the OT, but once a new covenant was made, followers of Jesus followed him, not former laws.

    If the story ended there, then one could assume that the OT’s laws would be what God would expect to be followed. Christianity wouldn’t exist had Jesus never come into the picture, or if he were viewed as another Jewish prophet advocating Jewish law. He is known by Christians as the Messiah so that created an entirely new covenant with those who chose/choose to follow him.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,275
    I agree, and that's a good way to look at it - as long as you don't heed that part of Matthew.
     
  18. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,566
    To be fair, I think any mentioning of homosexuality in the NT (and in some cases, the OT) were not singled out, but were wrapped up as part of all ''sexual sins'' that ''deviate'' from male/female marriage. So that would include adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. Jesus preached about one man/one woman marriages, so polygamy would also have been included in the ''list of sexual sins,'' that the NT brings up.

    That said, if one is committing ''sexual sins'' of any nature, then they could be facing God's condemnation, according to the Bible. But, I don't believe that Jesus was instructing anyone to murder people who were sexually sinning. He had stern warnings for anyone who was sinning, honestly...not only pertaining to sexually sinning.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,275
    If you take him literally about following the old laws, he was. However, from everything else in the Gospels, he was preaching forgiveness and tolerance - and I think that's a great thing to focus on.
     
  20. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,566
    The Bible teaches that Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. This means that he was advising everyone that he was going to pay the ''price'' for the world's sins. (violating the laws of the OT, as well) So, Jesus didn't come to negate the law...that's true. The NT teaches that he came to take everyone's place who violated those laws, and any future ''sins'' to follow, thereby ''fulfilling'' it.

    Jesus's death and resurrection if you believe in that, wouldn't make sense for a Christian today, if he/she didn't understand that point. The new covenant according to the Bible is also teaching about forgiveness and loving one's neighbor '' as thy self.'' According to the Bible, Jesus fulfilled the law, and now the ''new'' instruction was to repent of one's sins and forgive others of theirs. Of course, this doesn't mean we do away with the prison system, but I happen to think that Jesus wouldn't be in favor of the death penalty.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  21. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,033
    Why are you trying to change the subject?
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,688
    Do you know anything about the animal world? Some species eat the other's offspring, some males kill their offspring. Octopus laid hundreds of eggs hoping that some aren't eaten and can survive long enough to reach adulthood. Most don't.
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,923
    Regarding the forum, I recall a point you once made about the abstract proposition that certain politics might be actively promoted, and ideas antithetical thereunto actively suppressed, with such censorship justified on the basis of certain political positions; it happened to go along, on one or another occasion, with the bit about mature adults, and all that. And toward that, yes, it's easy enough to declare we find this proposition very problematic, unless that happens to be what we are doing.

    What stands about your present iteration is that you wrote what you did not so long after I covered that point with you; so just to remind you:

    • It's like when you see the word "dangerous", and start sneering about people getting triggered and needing protection from controversial subject matter: You never gave a damn about certain other triggers that matter. Most of us have seen stupid advocacy of dangerous behavior, before; what Sciforums doesn't need, nor anyone else for that matter, is others finding comfort and justification in those posts. That, too, is what dangerous means.​

    In a way, no, of course I'm not surprised to find you here putting your needs onto everyone else. Seriously, you even got the bit about, "There is always the option not to read". What was it I said? Oh, right, that a certain kind of annoying, why-did-he-waste-his-time post, with its decision to respond or pass over, is the kind of unnecessary hostility we get for setting such low and antisocial bars.

    And we should probably take the moment: While the idea you saw the note and went on to write that is something of a headscratcher, the flip side is that you're just that predictable.

    Not irrelevant: Several years ago we revised the rules. Why did we bother? Or, more directly, we retained language about rational discourse. Why? Was it just too difficult to come right out and say it, then, that standards of rational discourse are anathema? Did something change 'twixt then and now? Why bother with the pretense? Compared to the rules we posted, did any of the moderators ever stand a chance? They thought they were trying to enforce the rules to help build an intelligent community for rational discussion. It turns out they seem to have been offending your aesthetics. Most of them didn't sign on for a place to catalog the lowest valences of effort willful antisociality could manage.

    For the most part, they played along in good faith. And they tried. And then there's you, who apparently can't tell the difference between behavior and a political view. And tilts windmills.

    Like this, which is your own make-believe, and for years, now. We can't even discuss behavioral questions because of this. And here's the trick: If someone is behaving poorly, you are the one who thinks them incapable of behaving any better. That's the key to your appeal about silencing people.

    So, let's go ahead and clear this part up: If one is forbidden to behave in a deliberately provocative manner, how is that person silenced? (Is that person incapable of not behaving in a deliberately provocative manner?) If one is forbidden lying and misrepresentation of sources, how is that person silenced? (Is that person incapable of not lying and misrepresenting?) We even have some breathakingly self-indulgent make-believe, and, okay, it's true, in one case if we told the member to stop behaving like a delusional, offensive prig, he probably couldn't, but it's not entirely clear what political view would be silenced, since it changes so often.

    To the one, you never really did enumerate what political views you thought you were protecting; to the other, you made it kind of clear, anyway. But the sum effect of needing it here, James, even if it's full of shite, is that Sciforums is known as a place that needs it.

    To engage this behavior in discourse can be futile, because it has, by your insistence, no obligation to good faith. People can choose to not read, and try to continue discussions disrupted by provocative behavior; in that case, the problem is invested in other people who didn't choose to not read, refused or saw no reason to leave the behavior alone. One can certainly try putting as many people as they need and can on ignore until it the willful antisociality doesn't reach them. At that point, we will have sacrificed pretty much everything about being a discussion board unto the altar of free speech, or whatever, creating a safe space to catalog cheap supremacism and antisociality.

    How much effort should anyone put into trying to figure why you want it that way? Seriously, though, it's kind of useless, at this point, to keep pretending otherwise.

    Still, I'm in a room where even the ostensibly enlightened are obliging people to kill. It's not that our little corner of bedlam is the only place that could ever happen, or anything; it just happens to be the room I'm in, and creating the sort of atmosphere and ethos in which these outcomes occur does require some effort.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page