Abortion

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]To say that she consents to getting pregnant in such cases is equivalent to claiming that someone who gets injured in a car accident consents to getting injured, because he knew before he got into the car that it was possible he would get injured in an accident.

The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation.

The purpose of a car is transportation, not to cause bodily injury.

I do not see these as being equivalent. A pregnancy is intercourse fullfilling its purpose, whereas a car accident is the exact opposite.

Abortion is equivalent to abortion. It is unique in its aspects of morality and mortality. Let us call apples as apples, and oranges as oranges.

Originally posted by Omnislash
The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation.

The purpose of a car is transportation, not to cause bodily injury.

I do not see these as being equivalent. A pregnancy is intercourse fullfilling its purpose, whereas a car accident is the exact opposite.

Abortion is equivalent to abortion. It is unique in its aspects of morality and mortality. Let us call apples as apples, and oranges as oranges.

That's exactly what I mean when I say bbarr is using semantic gymnastics in his reasonings. Some are obvious some are hidden. He is aware of that.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

That's exactly what I mean when I say bbarr is using semantic gymnastics in his reasonings. Some are obvious some are hidden. He is aware of that.

I leave the debate with you gentlemen. While I am greatly in accordance with your views Ivanhoe, I commented on this part because I hold a particular distaste for it (being that I have explained the error of the same analogy three times now in this read). The issue is a simple matter with a simple solution.

Originally posted by Omnislash
The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation.

The purpose of a car is transportation, not to cause bodily injury.

I do not see these as being equivalent. A pregnancy is intercourse fullfilling its purpose, whereas a car accident is the exact opposite.

Abortion is equivalent to abortion. It is unique in its aspects of morality and mortality. Let us call apples as apples, and oranges as oranges.

That is a black and white statement. Sex can serve different purposes. We have to learn to get them in tune.

I agree with you that Bbarr's comparison of pregnancies, wanted or not, with car accidents is not a very good one.

Fjord

Originally posted by Omnislash
The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation.

The purpose of a car is transportation, not to cause bodily injury.

I do not see these as being equivalent. A pregnancy is intercourse fullfilling its purpose, whereas a car accident is the exact opposite.

Abortion is equivalent to abortion. It is unique in its aspects of morality and mortality. Let us call apples as apples, and oranges as oranges.

Outside of religious dogma, I see no reason for thinking that the purpose of sex is procreation rather than, say, an expression of intimacy between two people or even mere recreation. People have sex for all sorts of reasons, and people take precautions against getting pregnant. If the purpose of sex is procreation, does that entail that sterile people ought not have sex, or that birth control is wrong, or that sex not resulting in pregnancy is a failure? Of course not, those implications would be absurd.

Originally posted by fjord
That is a black and white statement. Sex can serve different purposes. We have to learn to get them in tune.

I agree with you that Bbarr's comparison of pregnancies, wanted or not, with car accidents is not a very good one.

Fjord

That's not very helpful. Given that Omnislash's contention that the purpose of sex is procreation has absurd consequences, I see no reason to think that the analogy is well-formed. If you disagree, perhaps you could point out where the analogy fails.

Originally posted by bbarr
Outside of religious dogma, I see no reason for thinking that the purpose of sex is procreation rather than, say, an expression of intimacy between two people or even mere recreation.

Religion has nothing to do with the obvious.

Yes man has invented ways to harvest enjoyment out of a natural function, whilst avoiding the actual repercussions of that action, but does that render the actual function of sex void ?

Your mention of sterile couples , is disfuctional as they are not the norm, nor fit into the evolutionary history of man.

Should you choose to argue that masterbation or oral sex fulfills purposes other than procreation, I can agree with you, however the ejaculation of semen into the opposite sex serves only one function.

Originally posted by bbarr
That's not very helpful. Given that Omnislash's contention that the purpose of sex is procreation has absurd consequences, I see no reason to think that the analogy is well-formed. If you disagree, perhaps you could point out where the analogy fails.

"It is not very helpful".
You are right. I will try to explain that remark.

I agree with you that sex has more functions than procreation. But the reason that sexual intercourse developed in the evolution was the necessity of procreation.
Enjoying sex was certainly a 'smart' way to make sex acttractive and to be sure of procreation. I think this is true for most mammals, including human beings.
It is thinkable that the function of procreation in the future will disappear and that we arrange procreation in a different way. The function of sex will change. Pleasure feelings and feelings closeness with (a) partners will become dominant. The question is if our physical, emotional en psychological properties can keep up with these changes, due to the technical possibilities we have created.

The functions of sex are changing very rapid. This is not due to changes in the nature of human beings, but to technical progress. We may hope and expect that humans will adept themselves to the new developments, but we should be careful here. The link between sex and procreation is deeply rooted in our psychological, social and cultural systems. We may play and enjoy sex but we better be aware of the potentiality of sexual intercourse and how these feelings are part of our being.

It is one of the human abilities to make drastic and sometimes tragic changes in the course of events in our own lives and in nature in general. Often we change this course of events without a good view of all the consequences. We see that in many fields: ecology, weapon races, communication, food production, and health care. We are very good in discovering the profits and advantage of such changes, but repetitiously bagatelle the disadvantage. We tend to overlook the disadvantages and drawbacks of new developments in our longing for fame and rapid profits.

This danger of overestimating the value of new developments is in my opinion also true in our approach to questions about sexuality, pregnancy, and euthanasia. It is not easy to say what the consequences will be, when sex will be more and more disconnected from its function of procreation.

The distinction you make between human organisms and persons is very helpful in finding the borderlines of what is permissible in the field of killing living organisms. You have tried to describe the borders within which killing is permitted. Your picture is clear, but I don't feel at ease with the easiness you present them. It might be me, it might be the heated discussion in which it comes to me. I don't know yet.

It is not very clear to me what you mean with suffering. I have asked you before if you see suffering as an attribute of self-awareness. You denied that. You see it as an independent property that beings possess. But I still do not understand what you actually mean by suffering. I know when I suffer and I can see others suffer because they are like me. But where do you draw the line between who and what suffers or not. Is not everything that is thwarted in its normal development suffering in some way?

If I understood Pyrrho well, he claims like you (?) that suffering has no value in itself. Agreed, but is there anyhow anything that has value in itself? Is value not a thing we always first have to give to something or somebody? Suffering seems to me like all other emotions neutral, without value. The value comes in sight by the way a person, a group, a culture or a religion uses our ability to suffer. Suffering can become good or bad, depending how we estimate it or can deal with it. We should avoid needless suffering as we should avoid anything that is needless.

When we look at the Buddhist philosophy we encounter a total different approach towards suffering and the attitude we humans have to take towards suffering. Actually they claim that a growing awareness can overcome suffering. This is not the place to question their claim. It just shows how difficult it is to use suffering as an indicator if an organism is a person or not. A Buddhist who claims to have overcome suffering has become less of a person?

Another problem with your philosophical approach of who may be killed and who may not is the absence of time in your reasoning. It seems it is sufficient for you to determine that someone at a certain moment is lacking the essential properties to be labeled as a person. But let us assume that a living organism is lacking these properties but there is a chance these properties can come back in the future? Can we kill such a being according to your theory? And if you agree with me that we cannot kill a being where such properties may return why is it than allowed to kill a zygote that has all the potential to grow out to a person?

A zygote is not a person according to your definition, but if you treat it well it will become one. It feels to me that you have overlooked the consequences of cutting out the time dimension in your reasoning.
We may wonder why so many women are suffering from depressions after an abortion. Mentally they know that the fetus didn't suffer on a physical level, but they still feel they have lost something very valuable.

From where comes that feeling after an abortion that they have lost something that they valued and that never can return? They (and their intimates) wrestle with feelings of guilt.

To compare such a pregnancy that with a car accident is wrong and not very helpful, not before and not afterwards an abortion. Woman may feel that a sexual assault is like a horrible not wanted accident, they may feel that the bursting of a condom is like a flat tire. That is not directly connected with what is happening afterwards and inside her womb.

I am not against abortion (at an early stage) nor against euthanasia. And I appreciate your attempt to make a sharp distinction between what is permitted and what is not. But I get the feeling that your solutions are too mathematical, too one-dimensional. And that provokes in me a feeling of resistance.

Fjord

Originally posted by fjord
"It is not very helpful".
You are right. I will try to explain that remark.

I agree with you that sex has more functions than procreation. But the reason that sexual intercourse developed in the evolution was the necessity of procreation.
Enjoying sex was certainly a 'smart' way to make sex acttractive and to be sure of procreation. I think this is ...[text shortened]... mathematical, too one-dimensional. And that provokes in me a feeling of resistance.

Fjord

Deterministic science would say that there is but one reason for the brain giving off "pleasure" pheramones during sex. To facilitate procreation.

This is the basic argument against "Militant Gays". They have no clue that it is "offensive" to nature.

Perversion is an interesting word. It means simply "that which offends", until you put it into an arena of thought. In context of "gaydome" and homosex... it becomes loaded. End of discussion.

I would be really interested in what sense sexual intercouse is needed or required outside of procreation. Only in "perversion" as described above. So are "Perverts" to be reviled?

No. What can we expect from a world that packs us in like fish in a tin? Is there a normal meaning to "sexual competition" under modern definitions? No. So Sex For Pleasure sells. Ain't it sad?

Is sex a pleasure? Yes. Simple chemicals. Is it for "procreation"? Yes. Simple children. Can it be "Perverted"? Yes. Through the act of offending what nature intended. Is that evil? No. Just weird. But we all take solice where we find it. That is the consequence of not getting out into the universe as we are supposed to do.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy

This is the basic argument against "Militant Gays". They have no clue that it is "offensive" to nature.

Rubbish!
Minority of gays endangers neither procreation nor nature. Why should it be offensive?
And even if human procreation would stop I wonder how Nature would describe that. Insult or relief?

Fjord

Originally posted by fjord
Rubbish!
Minority of gays endangers neither procreation nor nature. Why should it be offensive?
And even if human procreation would stop I wonder how Nature would describe that. Insult or relief?

Fjord

Because it is. And the idea they portray of a "right". In an "animalistic" sense... they have the right to perish of prove their point. Sad world ain't it.


Insult. Nature is a strange bitch. It wants not pleasure, only "more", and don't spare the diversity.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You guys are now talking about gay rights. Since this thread is about abortion I would like to ask bbarr a question concerning gay rights and the right to kill unborn:

Is it morally acceptable to perform abortion on a human being (no p ...[text shortened]... that the human being in question will be a homosexual person ?

"Gay Rights" is a catch word. I prefer not to be lead around by the nose. "Gay Rights" is silly. Gay means to "be happy". "To Be Happy" rights is meaningless.😵 So what rights does a "homosexual" person have? Every right. Just please... stop with the "Gay" crap already. You ain't any more happy than me.

Hi Joe.

Here is my best imitation of Bennet... God forgive me... errr... (never mind)...

"It is not relevant. All persons are equal."

but I appologize. He will take him at least ten paragraphs to say that.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy

Hi Joe.

Here is my best imitati persons are equal."

but I appologize. He will take him at least ten paragraphs to say that.[/b]

There are human beings who are more equal than other human beings. Bbarr calls those human beings persons and thus Bbarr has created two kinds of human beings, one kind with human rights, and another kind without human rights. To "solve" this question he wants to rename "human rights" to "person rights". Problem solved. Too bad for those human beings without rights. They do not fit into Bbarrs definition. That's why I call bbarrs thinking bureaucratic, meaning he's thinking exactly according to the (=his) rules. The rules are responsible, not bbarr, his thinking is "objective" ..... of course in a theoretical way .......

Be carefull not to fit into BBarr's definitions ...... you're lucky you are already a person .... but you know what ? That can change in the future ! Maybe he'll change his definitions ....... 😵