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

[pjdude1219]

Birth has a greater history than even your personal ideas about history and religion.

these aren;t personal ideas these are facts. typical of the over religious self rightous sanctimonious and arogant

 

[Musika]

these aren;t personal ideas these are facts. typical of the over religious self rightous sanctimonious and arogant

Ok. So you have abandoned your "historical antiquity" argument and are trying an ad hom different argument.
Hmmm. Let's see.

So parenthood isn't, IYHO, a personal idea? (... and furthermore, your opinion isn't offensive, self-righteous and arrogant?)

 

[Musika]

Social Darwinism includes preventing pregnancy by natural means such as coitus interruptus or using prophylactics.

Your choice of "natural" is interesting ... but that aside, genocide is also included in social darwinism, and advocates seem to be convinced they are establishing the natural order of things. This is why people, at least post WW2, tend not to use the term to support their views

Unregulated combustion engines, improper waste treatment and waste disposal are the main cause for air and water pollution. Unlike every other organism in nature, man is able to produce non bio-degradable and highly toxic substances, which by the law of exponential function can build an extremely toxic environment in relativesly short periods of time. Even our oceans are beginning to show the terrible effects of human pollution around river deltas.

And then we have an occasional oil spill which renders several thousand square miles of ocean uninhabtable for native food sources.

Switching to non-carbon based energies will relieve the situation greatly. In 200 years we have released (drilled) more sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere than was naturally removed from the air and "stored" by millions of years of natural sequestration. The prohibition of oil drilling or fracking and replacing oil and coal with renewable energy resources will show immediate results.

This has been known for decades, yet denied and ignored by industry, because carbon based energy is cheap and humans are greedy. An excessive reckless "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" without regard to consequences.

Alternatively, human society could be more self controlled. Industry that has no demand goes bust. Problem solved.

 

[Musika]

And perhaps global climate change will require more frequent abortion as a means of birth control to reduce our population (if we hope, as a race, to survive.) Of course, birth control is infinitely preferable - but because today we have religious nutcases who object to that, we may get to the point where they force us to resort to abortion instead.

Any amiable solution would seem to require that people drop their small minded political rhetoric. This also includes nutcase atheists with their hyper-vigilance to tear down anything remotely religious.

 

[Tiassa]

If you're going to level a legitimate criticism you might want to keep the facts straight. I entered the thread in response to a post made by iceaura regarding the race and parentage of Jesus.

We should take the moment to review the record.

Stop trying to pretend that any of the comments, yours or SetiAlpha6's in this thread had any meaningful contribution to discussion of abortion in the US. At the point I entered the thread the wheels were already coming off, and you had already made your obligatory ideological poses, so stop crying and go find another trigger to feel alive.

Here we come back to your priority: personal judgment and a rush to white supremacism.

Meanwhile, people were addressing a novel and unsupported claim offered in support of a debunked claim that, sure, has ethnosupremacist elements woven into it, but more has to do with a pretense of Christianist evangelism reading more like ill-considered antireligious provocateurism. Dedicated laborious sloth is, in itself, curious behavior, as there are many paths arriving at the appearance.

Still, though, we have a quasihistorical assertion on the table, and one of the questions that remains is whence it comes, that we might examine the source support. Whether or not we ever get that out of an advocacy that reads more like lazy, antireligious provocateurism is its own question, and the advocate will as he does; your digression into lazy white supremacism is your own question, your own priority.

You skipped out on this part when answering that post↑. The next time through—

The question remains why you bothered with this pretense of Devil's advocacy in the first place, since it was a change of subject (#282↑). Iceaura (#287↑) was pretty direct on this point; doubling (#292↑) and tripling (#298↑) down wasn't really a good idea, especially if intending retreat to a pretense of Devil's advocacy (#300↑) as mockery justifying your white-supremacist distraction (#311↑). You ask how else to play Devil's Advocate (#305↑), and the thing about the Devil is that he isn't supposed to be stupid; properly playing Devil's Advocate requires some effort, intelligence, and, as strange as it might seem, good faith and appropriate charity in one's characterization of the Devil.

And maybe our neighbor would have gotten to actually arguing open white supremacism on his own, but in the moment it's true, we're discussing your spectacle. It's also true, SA6 has little or no incentive to ever support his association about Joseph not being a Jew; putting up a real argument may have been beside the point of his posturing. Whatever the real thesis is, though, your priority has been putting on a different supremacist spectacle all your own.

—the best you could come up with was halfwitted, cynical, flight↑: "Behold the mind of the inquisitor. What’s next, you throw me into the moat and pass judgment on whether I float or not?"

Facing a third iteration, and from someone else—

Let's take it from when you entered the thread, to essentially a point of race, when the side discussion in the thread was the ridiculous notion of the fake Shroud of Turin ....

—you finally decided to answer, but did so in a manner that does not preclude the standing criticism: "If you're going to level a legitimate criticism", you complained, "you might want to keep the facts straight. I entered the thread in response to a post made by iceaura regarding the race and parentage of Jesus."

Indeed, your present excuse runs squarely into the standing criticism you already fled.

Consider that if you wish people to accept you are incapable of understanding Iceaura's post at #282↑ that is well enough, but you would, in the same, be inherently acknowledging a lack of competence or qualification to comment as you do. That is to say, you either willfully changed the subject, seemingly confirmed in a later post (#311↑), or else aren't competent to understand a three-sentence post comprising thirty words according to the forty-three words in four sentences quoted for response.

If you insist on arguing that what happened is your own abysmal reading comprehension, then yes, there does come a point at which people will and accept that asserted incompetence as fact.

SetiAlpha6's ridiculous pretense of stupidity is his own problem. Your worthless bigotry is yours. In neither case should either of you be visiting those miseries on anyone else.

 

[Capracus]

Consider that if you wish people to accept you are incapable of understanding Iceaura's post at #282↑ that is well enough, but you would, in the same, be inherently acknowledging a lack of competence or qualification to comment as you do. That is to say, you either willfully changed the subject, seemingly confirmed in a later post (#311↑), or else aren't competent to understand a three-sentence post comprising thirty words according to the forty-three words in four sentences quoted for response.

Stop beating around the bush Tailgunner Tiassa, just go ahead and ask the question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the KKK.

 

[Write4U]

Your choice of "natural" is interesting ... but that aside, genocide is also included in social darwinism, and advocates seem to be convinced they are establishing the natural order of things. This is why people, at least post WW2, tend not to use the term to support their views.

Are you equating abortion for a host of different compelling personal reasons with racist human genocide?

Alternatively, human society could be more self controlled.

I agree.

Industry that has no demand goes bust. Problem solved.

Not if there are no alternatives and the Big Oil and Coal oppose any attempts for research and development of alternate sources. It's amazing what having a monopoly does to discourage competition.
Read up on the resistance to hybrid or electric transportation in the US. Japan is way ahead of us. In the US, we like our gas guzzlers.

Aside: As a result of preferential treatment of Halliburton and similar companies, we have created this situation. Have you ever read up on the Halliburton Loophole which exempts Frackers from EPA regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

It's interesting to note that frackers can drill beneath your property without your permission.

Since the film's release, An Inconvenient Truth has been credited for raising
international public awareness of global warming and reenergizing the environmental movement. The documentary has also been included in science curricula in schools around the world, which has spurred some controversy. A sequel to the film, titled An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, was released on July 28, 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

Why do you think China is about 10 years ahead of the US in solar and hydro power.

2. China,
As the nation with the largest population and carbon footprint, China’s clear commitment to renewable energy is encouraging. As of 2015, China is the largest producer and buyer of solar panels. The vast majority of photovoltaic products, or solar panels, is being installed in remote areas by giant solar farms that sell the energy to utilities. Satellite imagery shows the incredible growth of these enormous solar farms that continue to pop up all over China.

Then there is Hydropower, note the irony with the comparison to Trumps wall.;

China's $25 Billion Three Gorges Dam Rivals The Great Wall Of China In Scale And Ingenuity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_China

But we prefer the wall don't we? Keep those drug peddlers out so that US Big Pharma can capture the addictive opioid market.

 

[billvon]

Any amiable solution would seem to require that people drop their small minded political rhetoric. This also includes nutcase atheists with their hyper-vigilance to tear down anything remotely religious.

Sure. Get rid of nutcases on BOTH sides and you'd make a lot more progress.

 

[Write4U]

Musika said: ↑
Any amiable solution would seem to require that people drop their small minded political rhetoric. This also includes nutcase atheists with their hyper-vigilance to tear down anything remotely religious.

Sure. Get rid of nutcases on BOTH sides and you'd make a lot more progress.

I agree.

But I object to Musika's assertion that atheists are hyper vigilant to tear down religions. That's just not true.
OTOH , religions do command the believer to engage in unsolicited proselytizing of their religion. That's what atheists respond to.
Atheists don't care what you believe, just "keep thy religion to thyself".

 

[billvon]

But I object to Musika's assertion that atheists are hyper vigilant to tear down religions. That's just not true.

Well, some do - just as some religious types like nothing better than to call atheists unenlightened, faithless fools. But those are the extremes.

 

[Musika]

Are you equating abortion for a host of different compelling personal reasons with racist human genocide?

I'm saying that the "well, we got to keep the population down, so therefore abortion" represents a sizable notch on the moral degradation scale.

I agree. Not if there are no alternatives and the Big Oil and Coal oppose any attempts for research and development of alternate sources. It's amazing what having a monopoly does to discourage competition.
Read up on the resistance to hybrid or electric transportation in the US. Japan is way ahead of us. In the US, we like our gas guzzlers.

Aside: As a result of preferential treatment of Halliburton and similar companies, we have created this situation. Have you ever read up on the Halliburton Loophole which exempts Frackers from EPA regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

It's interesting to note that frackers can drill beneath your property without your permission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

Why do you think China is about 10 years ahead of the US in solar and hydro power.
2. China,
As the nation with the largest population and carbon footprint, China’s clear commitment to renewable energy is encouraging. As of 2015, China is the largest producer and buyer of solar panels. The vast majority of photovoltaic products, or solar panels, is being installed in remote areas by giant solar farms that sell the energy to utilities. Satellite imagery shows the incredible growth of these enormous solar farms that continue to pop up all over China.

Then there is Hydropower, note the irony with the comparison to Trumps wall.;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_China

But we prefer the wall don't we? Keep those drug peddlers out so that US Big Pharma can capture the addictive opioid market.

All this is good evidence of how a society hell bent on consumerism lacks the integrity to make serious inroads towards ecological sustainability. The ultimate solution cannot come from tech companies or industrial giants, but from habits of consumption. It's not a question of alternative energy (which represents but one slice of how humans are terror-forming the planet) but an alternative attitude towards our relationship with the planet.

 

[DaveC426913]

Any amiable solution would seem to require that people drop their small minded political rhetoric. This also includes nutcase atheists with their hyper-vigilance to tear down anything remotely religious.

It would be interesting to see the other side of this coin on a Religion Forum.
One wonders if you would be disparaging the devout for trying to tear down anything secular...

Note, by the way, this thread is not in the Religion subforum.

 

[Musika]

I agree.

But I object to Musika's assertion that atheists are hyper vigilant to tear down religions. That's just not true.
OTOH , religions do command the believer to engage in unsolicited proselytizing of their religion. That's what atheists respond to.
Atheists don't care what you believe, just "keep thy religion to thyself".

An inability to recognize that any sort of political spectrum requires at least two extremes to operate is a clear indication of bias. There is never only "one political extreme."

 

[Write4U]

I'm saying that the "well, we got to keep the population down, so therefore abortion" represents a sizable notch on the moral degradation scale

No one has advanced that as a solution to overpopulation. China tried "one child per family" but found that is unenforcable and modified that law.

In November 2013, following the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, China announced the decision to relax the one-child policy. Under the new policy, families could have two children if one parent, rather than both parents, was an only child.

Provincial governments could, and did, require the use of contraception, sterilizations and abortions to ensure compliance, and imposed enormous fines for violations. Local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work. China also rewards families with only one child. From 1982 onwards, in accordance with the instructions on further family planning issued by the CPC central committee and the state council in that year, regulations awarded 5 yuan per month for only children. Parents who had one child would also get a “one-child glory certificate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

 

[Musika]

It would be interesting to see the other side of this coin on a Religion Forum.
One wonders if you would be disparaging the devout for trying to tear down anything secular...

Note, by the way, this thread is not in the Religion subforum.

On the topic of disparaging, did you also take note of which party specifically introduced religion to this particular discussion?

 

[Musika]

No one has advanced that as a solution to overpopulation.

Yet here you are, with kind words to say about social darwinism.

China tried "one child per family" but found that is unenforcable and dropped that law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Relevance?

 

[Write4U]

Yet here you are, with kind words to say about social darwinism.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have not advanced any preference in birth-control.
I merely stated that having fun and sexual responsibility are not related.
But social darwinism will happen, it's inevitable as long as we are earth-bound.

Relevance?

Look at the OP question. The introduction of China enforcing birth control by any means. Apparently they thought it was the more socially (morally) acceptable than overpopulation where children would die from starvation on the streets (as they do in Africa).

The point you seem to miss completely is that overpopulation will happen and we will have to come up with solutions to curb population growth. This may seem strange and cruel, but it is an inevitability. Watch the lecture by Albert Bartlett. He finishes with this sober observation that the control of overpopulation will pose the greatest moral dilemma mankind has ever faced.

Today there are 7.7 billion people and the current growth rate is 1.07% p/yr.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

This translates into a population doubling to 14.14 billion people in 70/1.07 = 65 years, less than one lifetime.

Therefore: The rate of human population growth needs to come down!!! How we do that is the moral dilemma.
Shall we have less good clean fun or fewer babies or fewer older people? Is that even a choice?

The point is, we don't have to do anything. Then nature will find a solution (natural selection) and that won't be fun, I can guarantee that. Let's see if you can work with that moral dilemma.

 

[Write4U]

Has anybody ever contemplated that the earth "experiences" humans as an invasive species. A modern and highly specialized warlike ant colony. Objectively a case can be made that humans are parasitic organisms as far as earth is concerned. We use natural resources and return a chemical mess that infiltrates every corner of our ecosphere, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and extinction of many important species such as honeybees.
We completely lack a respect for our host organism, at our peril.
This is a morally important question, IMO.

 

[Musika]

Don't put words in my mouth. I have not advanced any preference in birth-control.
I merely stated that having fun and sexual responsibility are not related.
.

While abortion and your ideas about it are not the sole contributor to the world's problems, this attitude of disintergrated connection between action and responsibility certainly is.

.

But social darwinism will happen, it's inevitable as long as we are earth-bound.
.

You say you are not speaking kindly about it ... and then proceed to speak kindly about it.

.

Look at the OP question. The introduction of China enforcing birth control by any means. Apparently they thought it was the more socially (morally) acceptable than overpopulation where children would die from starvation on the streets (as they do in Africa).

The point you seem to miss completely is that overpopulation will happen and we will have to come up with solutions to curb population growth. This may seem strange and cruel, but it is an inevitability. Watch the lecture by Albert Bartlett. He finishes with this sober observation that the control of overpopulation will pose the greatest moral dilemma mankind has ever faced.
.

The point you miss is that you insist on finding solutions to overpopulation that don't threaten the status quo of industrial economies.

.

Today there are 7.7 billion people and the current growth rate is 1.07% p/yr.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

This translates into a population doubling to 14.14 billion people in 70/1.07 = 65 years, less than one lifetime.

Therefore: The rate of human population growth needs to come down!!! How we do that is the moral dilemma.
Shall we have less good clean fun or fewer babies or fewer older people? Is that even a choice?

The point is, we don't have to do anything. Then nature will find a solution (natural selection) and that won't be fun, I can guarantee that. Let's see if you can work with that moral dilemma.

Well, it seems to suggest that industrial economies and the habbits and attitudes of people who support it (ie, consumers) is unnatural.

If one insists on maintaining unnatural attitudes towards this world, what do you suppose will be the result?

 

[Write4U]

The point you miss is that you insist on finding solutions to overpopulation that don't threaten the status quo of industrial economies

Right, mathematics don't work in your world........ Maybe God will solve the problem by "commanding" world war three (the end).