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

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

There is no hope in Atheism, only despair. Why do you sell it to others?

You mean there's no hope that there's an afterlife? Yes, you're right. Most atheists believe that when you die, that's pretty much it: you're gone.

I don't see why despair needs to follow from that. Perhaps you can explain why you would despair if it turned out that the atheists were right about death.

We talked earlier about how Atheism produces hopelessness and despair in the hearts of us earlier.

Not really. You just asserted that it produces hopelessness and despair. And yet, I'm confident that none of the atheists here will tell you they feel hopeless or despairing. So, there's a disconnect here somewhere.

Please explain to me why you think Atheists produces hopelessness and despair.

Will Provine was a naturalistic, evolutionist, determinist, and he rejected the idea that humans exercise free will. Provine believed that there is no evidence for the existence of God, no life after death, no absolute foundation for moral right and wrong, and no ultimate meaning or purpose for life.

Atheism/Naturalism has no hope and leads to unrelenting despair.

Your conclusion does not follow from what went before. Tell me why no evidence for the existence of God leads to hopelessness and despair. Tell me why no life after death leads to hopelessness and despair. Tell me why no absolute foundation for right and wrong leads to hopelessness and despair. As for meaning and purpose, those are things that people create for themselves all the time, are they not? They are hardly restricted to Christians.

In it, you are a predestined biological, mechanistic, robot, without any ability to choose anything now or ever, absolving you of all responsibility for your actions.

Who says we have no ability to choose anything? It seems to me that I make choices all the time.

Note: if you want to get into a discussion of free will, we have a thread running on that, too. It's in the Philosophy forum, and I urge to you catch up on where that discussion is at rather than rehashing it all here.

None of your thoughts are from you, because you as a freewill being do not exist.

That's a strange thing to say. Where else would your thoughts come from, other than from you, even if you had no free will?

You are only deterministic atoms bumping into each other. Only a series of chemical reactions.

Just like a cake is "only" a combination of flour, sugar, milk etc., I guess.

Your future is death, in the same way that your computer dies when enough of its parts fail.

Everybody dies, even Christians.

You are merely a biologic computer made of cells instead of plastic and metal, both made up of atoms. Only different in material and designed construction. You are Artificiall Intelligence.

You're the one who believes in artificial intelligence, not the atheists. You believe you were constructed by God, right? The atheists believe you came to be via entirely natural processes.

You don’t have a choice, you have to be an Atheist.

Just as you don't have a choice about being a Christian, if there's no free will.

Why would anyone spread this virus of the mind?

Why spread the virus of Christianity? I assume you have a reason.

 

[James R]

The child is inside the mother’s body, and is scientifically a separate human life, that deserves protection in the same way that the mother’s body deserves legal protection.

Tut tut.

You can't just repeat your claims while ignoring the specific questions I put to you above.

You need to explain why a zygote or a foetus or an embryo deserves the same protection as the mother, for example. So far, you haven't even tried to justify that claim.

Her body is her own property!
Her daughters body is her daughter’s.

Only the "daughter" you refer to is arguably not a person, such as to be able to own things and to have rights equivalent to those of the mother. Remember, we're not talking about a newborn infant here, or a grown child, or an adult, but a zygote, a foetus, an embryo, or an unborn baby.

I can’t kill people because they are living in my house, even if they are completely dependent on me for food, water, medical care, and shelter.

Right. You can't kill persons. Start there, and work backwards.

 

[James R]

I loved a college girl while I was in college, she suduced me, we had sex, she became pregnant while on birth control, but she would not marry me.

That was a very painful experience for me so I decided never to do it again until I was married, which I did.

This thread is about abortion. You don't say whether this college girl you mentioned went on to have the child or whether she lost it or aborted it. Given the context, are we to assume that she had an abortion?

Do you object to abortion because this girl who didn't want to marry you decided not to have your child, and you were upset by that? Is that what you're saying? You think it would have been better to force her by law to have the child, against her will?

I realise that this is personal for you. I'm not attacking you, and you don't have to respond to this post if you don't want to. But I'm a bit puzzled as to why you brought this up, in a thread you started about abortion.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

They are hardly restricted to Christians.

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

That's a strange thing to say. Where else would your thoughts come from, other than from you, even if you had no free will?

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...

Just like a cake is "only" a combination of flour, sugar, milk etc., I guess.

(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' !

Just as you don't have a choice about being a Christian, if there's no free will.

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

 

[billvon]

I loved a college girl while I was in college, she suduced me, we had sex, she became pregnant while on birth control, but she would not marry me.

That was a very painful experience for me so I decided never to do it again until I was married, which I did.

Go ahead and don’t believe me, if you wish!

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

Avoid having sex with women unless you are married and want kids

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

This thread is about abortion. You don't say whether this college girl you mentioned went on to have the child or whether she lost it or aborted it. Given the context, are we to assume that she had an abortion?

Do you object to abortion because this girl who didn't want to marry you decided not to have your child, and you were upset by that? Is that what you're saying? You think it would have been better to force her by law to have the child, against her will?

I realise that this is personal for you. I'm not attacking you, and you don't have to respond to this post if you don't want to. But I'm a bit puzzled as to why you brought this up, in a thread you started about abortion.

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

 

[James R]

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.

Don't tell me you're another one who believes in no sex unless it's for procreation.

Remember that he said she became pregnant while on birth control. There is no implication that somebody was being irresponsible here.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Don't tell me you're another one who believes in no sex unless it's for procreation.

Remember that he said she became pregnant while on birth control. There is no implication that somebody was being irresponsible here.

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

 

[Beer w/Straw]

pro universal health care

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...

 

[spidergoat]

Avoid having sex with women unless you are married and want kids.

Fuck you.

If you don't want a baby, don't have sex - unless you're prepared to live with the consequences

Fuck you.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...he said she became pregnant while on birth control. There is no implication that somebody was being irresponsible here.

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

 

[James R]

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

That point was made previously. For example, I made it in one of my posts.

 

[DaveC426913]

Don't tell me you're another one who believes in no sex unless it's for procreation.

Good lord, no.

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

 

[DaveC426913]

Fuck you.

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

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.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...he said she became pregnant while on birth control. There is no implication that somebody was being irresponsible here.

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

That point was made previously. For example, I made it in one of my posts.

I loved a college girl while I was in college, she suduced me, we had sex, she became pregnant while on birth control, but she would not marry me.
That was a very painful experience for me...

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.!!!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Notes on the obvious

I asked a few questions and others took it in the direction they desired and I walked with them down the pathways they chose. How was I being “deliberately deceptive” anywhere?

That's not actually clever enough to be a sleight. Your 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?

And your fallacious appeal to emotion in #13:

A child could die?

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

When a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages.

The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.

The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother.

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.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

 

[cluelusshusbund]

snip video

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