Sex, abortion discussion

[Villain]

A discussion started in the People who believe in God are broken thread which I think is probably off topic, so I have started a new thread. I will try to highlight the relevant posts but I suggest you read that thread to get a better understanding.

 

imatfaal, on 24 April 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

 

Whilst I am sure iNow will reply for himself - many of us here spend a not inconsiderable amount of time arguing on this subject; I will let you know why I do so.

 

I understand and recognize that religious observation and devotion is an important part of many peoples lives; that this provides succour and comfort in distress is good and I would never seek to take away that strictly personal relationship with a god/gods. However, the relationship is very often far from personal - it becomes proselytizing, which I find annoying and disruptive; but much worse it becomes political. I do not want to live in a state, a country, or a planet in which decisions are made based on what I believe is a fallacy. This has a real impact on the way we are able to live our lives - at present in the UK I am not overly affected by religiously motivated state interference in my life; however we often copy the lead of the USA, and there it is another matter entirely.

 

If you think I am exaggerating please take a look at this post - and the discussions that follow. The religious right in some states of America are actively and deliberately threatening women's rights of self-determination (through restrictions on contraception and draconian legislation on abortion)- those three bills alone are worth fighting over. Others might cite cases regarding Education and Bills in several state legislature that mandate the "teaching of the controversy" of evolution when scientifically there is none. These are why we debate and argue - to stop our countries being run by those labouring under a fallacious delusion.

 

Response, Villain:

Perhaps you would be better served by bringing up the problems of democracy. If the majority disagree with abortion or whatever else might be on the cards then it's probably going to get banned. Most countries ban recreational drugs as well and I'm sure some people are upset about it. Using the easy target of religion is a very weak argument in this regard. Vote or take up a political position if you want to change or keep legislation. Attacking someone's morals is not the best way of changing their mind IMO.

 

Response, imatfaal:

 

Oh I do bring up the problems of democracy - the main problem being that active interest groups regularly have far too much attention paid to them by lawmakers and that voters are apathetic to large degree. The fact that the majority (which will have to include a lot of women) might, even might, go along with the legislation I mentioned is the very crux of the problem. They are not thinking rationally and are basing their decision on falsehoods - as their judgments affect me, then I care. Being politically active (which I am) and trying to persuade others of their errors in fact, logic, and method are not exclusive, in fact they are necessarily complementary and thus essential. Politics and religion are intertwined and I would love to lessen that integration.

 

Response, Villain*:

 

It might not be your opinion but that doesn't automatically make it a falsehood. I don't think there is much rational thought in having sex for pleasure, I think if we were completely rational beings sex would be for reproduction only. So where exactly does the rational argument begin?

 

Response to Villain*, imatfaal:

 

No - but your question was about motivation. And my motivation comes from what I perceive as true and false. Quite clearly from my argument I think a motivation to change the world for religious reasons is ill-conceived. It is my opinion (which I believe is rational and well evidenced) that religion (through its pernicious effects on politics) adversely affects the world - as a rational being I am forced to confront this hazard and try and avert it.

 

On a rational being not having sex for pleasure; I cannot fathom your reasons for saying this. There are many things we must do to live, survive, and prosper as a species - we must eat, drink, breath, procreate, cooperate, excrete, defecate, and pay taxes etc . Some of these things very few people find any pleasure in at all, we do them because we must. The others we find pleasure in the act in addition to the necessity of the act. I would not want to spend the rest of my life eating nourishing gruel and drinking lukewarm tap water; as a rational being I can take the opportunity of combining something I must do with a pleasurable experience and thus today I had a cracking humus and olive salad washed down with strawberry milk (hey - I never claimed to be normal). I must admit I even eat and drink sometimes just for pleasure.

And sex - well sex is a hell of a lot better than humus and olive salad washed down with strawberry milk; it's enjoyable, good exercise, fun, an incredibly intimate and giving act, great fun, a moment of oneness between two identities, and really really good fun - and if you want it will put you on the path to having babies as well. It is totally irrational to do something that can give great pleasure in manner that does not give great pleasure. Sex is about the one thing in today's health conscious world that is an unalloyed good - it doesn't make you fat, or cause ill-health, it lowers stress and raises self-esteem etc - even without the baby-making it is an amazing thing, it would be irrational not to partake of it.

 

 

Ecoli response to Villain* comment:

 

The evolutionary explanation for sex being pleasurable is that pleasure would encourage reproduction. The more pleasurable sex is, the more we'd want to do it, a trait that would clearly result in amplification thanks to greater numbers of offspring. Enjoying sex, with the moderate hack of taking away the reproductive component, is perfectly rational behavior for pleasure-maximizing ulititaritons.

 

My response to the above two comments is as follows:

 

The primary function of sex in my mind is reproduction and the by-product is pleasure. No one is denying that sex is pleasurable, but to think of a baby as a undesirable hardship or risk in the attainment of pleasure is by no means rational, this is the act of creating life and the pleasure that is attained from it cannot compare to the life and responsibility to that life.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Villain

[imatfaal]

A discussion started in the People who believe in God are broken thread which I think is probably off topic, so I have started a new thread. I will try to highlight the relevant posts but I suggest you read that thread to get a better understanding.

 

Probably a good idea - thanks. And more thanks for quoting and setting out the arguments so far.

 

My response to the above two comments is as follows:

 

The primary function of sex in my mind is reproduction and the by-product is pleasure. No one is denying that sex is pleasurable, but to think of a baby as a undesirable hardship or risk in the attainment of pleasure is by no means rational, this is the act of creating life and the pleasure that is attained from it cannot compare to the life and responsibility to that life.

 

To reduce man to the simple sum of his or her biological functions is to miss something vital, an essence of humanity. We do not talk simply to impart data, we do not eat only to avoid starvation, we do not band together merely to fight the predators of the night - and we do not have sex solely to procreate. Whilst once our distant ancestors might have rutted with primordial instinct driving them to act - to deny or reduce the reasons beyond the biological function is to negate our very humanity; we are rational beings purely because we can and do act against animal instinct and at odds to the biological imperative.

 

Your argument of rationality misses two key factors that are hugely important in today's society; firstly - many couples do not want any (more) children and secondly many couples are same-sex pairings. For both these sectors of the community, sex can be very important; and for each of them children are not part of the equation - to state that their conception of sex is flawed or is missing an essential ingredient is moralising rather than rationalising. Sex in today's society has multiple functions - I, and many others, choose to privilege some and guard against the procreative function. I love good food - but I guard against getting fat or eating too much of the bad stuff. A homemade espresso is one of life's great pleasures - but I don't have many as I can feel my pulse rise after a few. These are completely rational decisions; if I were irrational I would eat, drink and make love with no conception or concern to the consequences - but I try to be rational and thus I take precautions.

 

The point of contraception is to allow the rational decision to exercise some of the functions of sex without procreation. That some religious leaders claim this is immoral or against god's law and a sin is in my opinion a great evil; the rationale behind their decision is a desire to bolster the patriarchal power of the ancient religions and to keep women pregnant and homebound

[Villain]

Are you really under the impression that humans are rational beings? Don't get me wrong, we are capable of rational thought but are not rational.

 

If many couples don't want children, not having sex would be the rational answer, contraceptives are not 100% effective (no matter how close they might come) and therefore the rational thing to do to avoid a child is to abstain from sex.

 

If rational thought is free of emotion, why would rational thought promote pleasure which is a form of emotion?

 

People might have their own reasons for sex but it is not a rational act. Much like eating to live is rational, eating cake (even in moderation) because you like it, is not rational.

 

Suggesting that religious leaders are trying to keep women pregnant and homebound is also completely irrational. Firstly the Abrahamic religions all have a no sex before marriage rule (not sure how you can get pregnant by abstaining), secondly not all Abrahamic denominations are against contraception and thirdly how long do modern working mothers really spend at home with their children? I think it is safe to say that the average paid maternity leave is probably 2-3 months. As far as I am aware religions don't prescribe the working patterns of mothers with children.

[CaptainPanic]

Villain, you started this topic, so I'll go with your flow. I thought we were talking about abortion, but this seems more about contraception. I guess we'll allow the discussion to include contraception (or the 'no sex' argument).

 

If many couples don't want children, not having sex would be the rational answer, contraceptives are not 100% effective (no matter how close they might come) and therefore the rational thing to do to avoid a child is to abstain from sex.

 

The argument is flawed, because those couples do not have just a single wish in their lives (not having any more kids). Their wishlist is a little longer than that, and includes several short-term and long-term wishes.

 

Two relevant wishes would be:

1. They do not want any kids

2. They want sex

 

So, your statement in itself is correct: if your only desire in life is not to get kids, then not having sex is the safest solution. Indeed, it is the only logical solution.

 

However, if your desires are (1) not to have kids, and (2) to have sex... then contraception is the logical solution.

 

The simple fact is that people can be incredibly horny (that's the scientific word for "wanting sex"), and still not want any kids. There are technical solutions. Why not indulge?

[ewmon]

Recreation overcomes procreation. With religion ignored, I think there's the natural discomfort of subjugating the primary purpose of sex (procreation) to its secondary purpose (recreation), the downside being, not a sunburn on the beach (from overdoing otherwise healthy exercise) or a few extra pounds (from overeating during the holidays), but a life hanging in the balance which abortion then takes away and which it does so by violating an important purpose of the woman's body to protect and nurture this new life. Abortion is not contraception because the baby is already conceived, it is "contralife" in that there is a new and unique human life, but it is not allowed to develop as nature intended.

 

In the US, abortion was campaigned for the married, worn-out middle-aged mother of several children who was tired of being a baby factory and simply couldn't handle the burden of another child; however, as it is practiced today, the majority of abortions are performed on unmarried, healthy, childless young women, which is what the prolifers had envisioned -- that it would be abused by uncommitted or careless young women, and that it would foster an unnatural "antilife" attitude (ie, that a fetus is "bad").

 

I think that if past generations had spoken openly about sex and considered sex as being "sacred" (not in any religious sense, but naturally sacred), then we would never have come to this problem. Naturally sacred in the same sense that our forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere are "sacred', which we must protect and preserve and not pollute. But Victorian/Puritanical thinking hushed up the topic and allowed misinterpretations to flourish. Sex is not dirty or raunchy, it is sacred in that it is the only way in which our human race has survived and will continue to survive.

 

"Life is sacred, and is not to be played with. Take great care, daughters, to whom you expose your eggs. Sons, take great care, to whom you give your sperm. Sons and daughters, make sure you do so under the correct circumstances because we're talking about the possibility of a 20-year commitment. When you do it properly, only then can you enjoy it 100%. Life is 100% or it is nothing; you can't turn it on or off like a light switch -- that would trivialize it. If you act as though you're making a 20-year commitment, but it's not in your heart to stand by such a commitment, then don't do it. It's as wrong as claiming to enter into marriage for the rest of your life, when your heart is only interested in the next five years. It's as wrong as being paid to perform work that you have no intention of performing. Be honorable: commit honestly from your heart, and stand by your commitments. And sex is so intimate and you expose yourself so much, that you must also take care not to acquire any sexually-transmitted diseases. The more partners you have, the more risk you take." When was the last time a child has heard such a speech? I very seriously doubt that it is being heard or given today.

 

The mentality: Seeking short-term consequences, and ignoring long-term consequences. The topic of sex and abortion is simply more of this mentality, which is generally acknowledged as the fall of civilization. We see it in various addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, etc). Go for the quick thrill; ignore the long-lasting after-effects. Do whatever you want, then take a pill/etc to fix it. Thrill-seeking.

 

As for scientific evidence, it has been found that men who become fathers (who experience the natural consequences of sex) undergo lower testosterone levels, settle down, become more faithful and family-oriented, and perhaps this is how it works. A conclusion: Contraception/abortion naturally drives men and women to be less committed to relationships and to seek more sex.

Edited April 26, 2012 by ewmon

[imatfaal]

Are you really under the impression that humans are rational beings? Don't get me wrong, we are capable of rational thought but are not rational.

 

If many couples don't want children, not having sex would be the rational answer, contraceptives are not 100% effective (no matter how close they might come) and therefore the rational thing to do to avoid a child is to abstain from sex.

That's just not true - the concept of hazard and risk assessment is fundamental to how we think, process decisions, and come to conclusions. We live and operate in the shadings of grey - not in the world of black and white certainties

 

If rational thought is free of emotion, why would rational thought promote pleasure which is a form of emotion?

who said it was?

 

People might have their own reasons for sex but it is not a rational act. Much like eating to live is rational, eating cake (even in moderation) because you like it, is not rational.

For a strange and incorrect definition of rational you might be correct - you seem to be conflating living by rational concepts foremost in one's mind with continued existence as the be all and end all. the desire to increase personal pleasure and minimize discomfort and pain is completely rational

 

Suggesting that religious leaders are trying to keep women pregnant and homebound is also completely irrational. Firstly the Abrahamic religions all have a no sex before marriage rule (not sure how you can get pregnant by abst ining), secondly not all Abrahamic denominations are against contraception and thirdly how long do modern working mothers really spend at home with their children? I think it is safe to say that the average paid maternity leave is probably 2-3 months. As far as I am aware religions don't prescribe the working patterns of mothers with children.

1. The enforcement of abstinence is much stronger on young women than on young men, the religious and social stigmatization of young women who ignore sexual restriction is vastly more pernicious and cruel than young men and controlling young peoples sexuality is another argument; it is still a religious patriarchy deciding that the arbitrary creation of rules and norms gives them greater power than the allowance of freedom of choice.

2. The fact that some religions do not use this particular ideology to control does not mean that others do. Which ones do and do not by the way?

3. This misses the point completely. Women are denied the choice - whether they are well looked after by some states or poorly provided for by others is immaterial, the removal of agency is the point in question.

 

To deny that the abrahamic religions have a dreadful record and current policy on the treatment of women - now that is irrational.

[Villain]

I think anything mentioned in the quotes or posts in probably fair game. The thread was just made in order to avoid derailing the one from which it came.

 

The argument is flawed, because those couples do not have just a single wish in their lives (not having any more kids). Their wishlist is a little longer than that, and includes several short-term and long-term wishes. Two relevant wishes would be:

 

1. They do not want any kids

 

2. They want sex

 

So, your statement in itself is correct: if your only desire in life is not to get kids, then not having sex is the safest solution. Indeed, it is the only logical solution.

 

However, if your desires are (1) not to have kids, and (2) to have sex... then contraception is the logical solution.

The simple fact is that people can be incredibly horny (that's the scientific word for "wanting sex"), and still not want any kids. There are technical solutions. Why not indulge?

 

 

 

The horny aspect can be dealt with otherwise, sex itself is not the only way to relief or enjoying someone's company. With regards to female orgasm, I think oral sex or masturbation are probably more efficient in this regard.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Villain

[CaptainPanic]

The horny aspect can be dealt with otherwise, sex itself is not the only way to relief or enjoying someone's company. With regards to female orgasm, I think oral sex or masturbation are probably more efficient in this regard.

I wrote that people want to have sex. Not an orgasm.

 

For many people the trip itself is at least as important as reaching the destination.

[Villain]

I wrote that people want to have sex. Not an orgasm.

 

For many people the trip itself is at least as important as reaching the destination.

 

What is there rationale behind this 'trip' if not to conceive or orgasm (the word orgasm is used to convey pleasure from sexual activity in case you are only talking about it only in the very heightened end of pleasure, I apologise if this was not clear).

 

That's just not true - the concept of hazard and risk assessment is fundamental to how we think, process decisions, and come to conclusions. We live and operate in the shadings of grey - not in the world of black and white certainties

 

who said it was?

 

For a strange and incorrect definition of rational you might be correct - you seem to be conflating living by rational concepts foremost in one's mind with continued existence as the be all and end all. the desire to increase personal pleasure and minimize discomfort and pain is completely rational

 

 

1. The enforcement of abstinence is much stronger on young women than on young men, the religious and social stigmatization of young women who ignore sexual restriction is vastly more pernicious and cruel than young men and controlling young peoples sexuality is another argument; it is still a religious patriarchy deciding that the arbitrary creation of rules and norms gives them greater power than the allowance of freedom of choice.

2. The fact that some religions do not use this particular ideology to control does not mean that others do. Which ones do and do not by the way?

3. This misses the point completely. Women are denied the choice - whether they are well looked after by some states or poorly provided for by others is immaterial, the removal of agency is the point in question.

 

To deny that the abrahamic religions have a dreadful record and current policy on the treatment of women - now that is irrational.

 

Perhaps I am the only one that thinks rational thought excludes emotion, if that's not the case then my argument is largely flawed.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Villain

[CaptainPanic]

What is there rationale behind this 'trip' if not to conceive or orgasm (the word orgasm is used to convey pleasure from sexual activity in case you are only talking about it only in the very heightened end of pleasure, I apologise if this was not clear).

Let's use this definition: orgasm is only the very heightened end of pleasure of sex.

My analogy worked like this: the trip is equivalent to having sex. And the orgasm would be equivalent to arriving at the destination.

 

In some cases it is sufficient to simply get to your destination as soon as possible. And in some cases, you deliberately go on a detour. You still want to arrive at the destination, so the rationale is still unchanged. But there is a second rationale: to see something in between.

 

The rationale is really simple. I'll use the wish list again:

- People want to have sex.

- They want to have the regular normal kind of sex, not masturbation or oral sex

- They don't want a baby

 

The thing is: there are methods to be able to check all three boxes, with very minimal risk. The risk is indeed not zero... but then again, it's not zero when you cross the street on your way to the cinema. And mind you, the cinema is not essential for your existance either - it's just pleasure. Still, people engage in the not-risk-free traffic just to get some fun.

 

Do you also sometimes go to the cinema? And do you think about the risks of traffic? If so, you can answer the questions about the rationale yourself.

[mistermack]

Humans are not very fertile, on average. I read a summary of a study recently, that concluded that a young couple, trying to conceive a child, has sex nearly 80 times on average, for each pregnancy. Many deer only do it once, to get a doe pregnant. 

Human children are vulnerable for such a long time, that it was very important, in our evolutionary past, that a female should have a male in attendance, to provide protection for both of them. So sex is not just to impregnate females in our case, it's a bonding mechanism to protect the vulnerable members of our species. 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I read a summary of a study recently, that concluded that a young couple, trying to conceive a child, has sex nearly 80 times on average, for each pregnancy.

This seems extremely unlikely and far too high. I’m skeptical of the result you suggest 

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

This seems extremely unlikely and far too high. I’m skeptical of the result you suggest 

I don't have my original link, but google came straight up with this :  

https://www.parents.com/getting-pregnant/trying-to-conceive/how-many-attempts-does-the-average-couple-need-to-conceive/    

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't have my original link, but google came straight up with this :  

Which points to this as it’s source: https://www.channelmum.com/

I’m not convinced that’s a great source. Either their data is shit, my wife and I are far above average, or some combination of both. 

[John Cuthber]

47 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Many deer only do it once, to get a doe pregnant. 

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that this happens with humans too.

 

The NHS information on fertility says 

"It's a good idea to see your GP if you haven't conceived after a year of trying."

 

[mistermack]

Even among the apes, there are big differences in mating characteristics. We humans have the biggest penis. A male silverback gorilla has a penis that's about 1.25 inches in length (from memory), even though he's twice the size of the average man. Chimpanzees are in the middle, but have huge testicles, and Man has the biggest penis of any ape. 

It all reflects different lifestyles. Silverbacks dominate a harem of females, and can mate any time they feel like it, without sexual competition or the need for consent. They compete by fighting and dominance. Chimps are believed to have the huge testicles, to compete via sperm, by flushing out the sperm of a previous mating by a rival. Humans have a tendency to pair off, but also there is often a lot of infidelity as well. Why we have the biggest penis might be related to walking upright. The penis is more visible, so there might be subconscious selection for size by females. But that's just a guess. It could be that we use more varied positions, or the lack of a penis bone. 

Or it could be again related to stronger pair bonding, as I speculated earlier. Human females don't "come into season", in the way that other primates do. They are ready to mate most of the time, and that could be related to bonding as well.