3 ms·

>If you think that, you really haven't been doing it right. Pleasure, companionship, comfort, reinforcement of social status, and many other purposes are common

>If you think that, you really haven't been doing it right. Pleasure, companionship, comfort, reinforcement of social status, and many other purposes are commonly fulfilled by the act of sex, including between same sex partners. I am not talking about beneficial side affects like pleasure. It is my understanding that the we evolved from asexual to sexual beings not for pleasure but for procreation of individuals that are more resilient than the result of asexual procreation. I am not denying these alternative benefits. Same sex sex does not lead to pregnancy so it isn't really relevant. >But let us say that you're correct. That still leaves 1% of pregnancies that are involuntary. What should women be allowed to do then? Are you willing to ban all abortions excluding rape and medical necessity? If not you are using an outlier to prove a rule (or whatever that phrase is). I don't think rape justifies killing an innocent bystander but would be more than happy with a ban of abortions excluding rape. > We aren't going to agree on when a fertilized egg becomes a person (I think you would say immediately, I would say only when viable outside the womb), but let's set that aside. I think this is crux of our disagreement. If you believed abortion killed a baby you would probably be closer to my side. I just think when a fetus has human DNA and possibly even a different blood type as the mother that shows it is a distinct individual. I don't think you can have a distinct human without it being a person. It is quite dehumanizing in my view. >I don't think women should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. You don't think destroying the fetus at any point is moral. What if we could both get what we want? I am in favor of things like this, the problem is removing the fetus. It would quite probably require in a c-section which some woman would not be a fan of. I do think it will quite hard to argue for abortion when artificial wombs become available for humans though. By the way, a few posts back I did mention artificial wombs. >Please note that unless women are provided with comprehensive sex education that includes contraception, there are going to be a lot more unwanted babies being born, regardless of how they are brought to term. This imposes a lot of costs on society that I hope you have some sort of plan to cover. I am not strictly speaking opposed to sex education, but I don't think it is relevant to whether or not abortion is legal. Just because you didn't have comprehensive sex end doesn't mean you should be allowed to have an abortion.

webmaven 4y ago
> I am not talking about beneficial side affects like pleasure. It is my understanding that the we evolved from asexual to sexual beings not for pleasure but for procreation of individuals that are more resilient than the result of asexual procreation. I am not denying these alternative benefits. Well, sexual reproduction was invented by rather primitive organisms around two billion years ago, but evolution hasn't stood still since then. If you think things like pleasure are mere beneficial side effects, you don't understand much about people either singly or in groups (how do you explain married couples who choose to remain childless?). You might look into bonobo chimpanzees, for whom sex has an even more central social role than for humans. > I don't think rape justifies killing an innocent bystander but would be more than happy with a ban of abortions excluding rape. Many conservatives would agree with you, but many of those would then start defining rape very restrictively. > I just think when a fetus has human DNA and possibly even a different blood type as the mother that shows it is a distinct individual. I don't think you can have a distinct human without it being a person. It is quite dehumanizing in my view. Hmm. I'm not sure what blood type has to do with it, and you've somewhat sidestepped the issue of when you think a fertilized egg becomes a human. You just use the term "fetus". Do you believe a fertilized egg immediately becomes a human deserving of rights, or is there some additional grace period or precondition such as successful implantation into the wall of the uterus? > I am not strictly speaking opposed to sex education, but I don't think it is relevant to whether or not abortion is legal. Just because you didn't have comprehensive sex end doesn't mean you should be allowed to have an abortion. I was more thinking that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to forbid abortion if they don't allow comprehensive sex-ed, rather than preconditioning abortion on the lack of it.:-/ What do you think of medically preventing fertilization, or preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (eg. hormones such as Levonorgestrel, also known as Plan-B)?
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Well, sexual reproduction was invented by rather primitive organisms around two billion years ago, but evolution hasn't stood still since then. I didn't say otherwise. >If you think things like pleasure are mere beneficial side effects, you don't understand much about people either singly or in groups (how do you explain married couples who choose to remain childless?). I don't get what you mean? People can attempt to separate sex from procreation and take steps to try and stop it from happening. I didn't say otherwise. >You might look into bonobo chimpanzees, for whom sex has an even more central social role than for humans. Nothing you are saying contradicts what I am saying. I think you are getting things backwards. The reason why sex is pleasurable or increases social standing or whatever else is to encourage procreation. Sex did not come about for pleasure but for procreation. >Many conservatives would agree with you, but many of those would then start defining rape very restrictively Since you can see the future can you tell me the winning lotto numbers? >Hmm. I'm not sure what blood type has to do with it, and you've somewhat sidestepped the issue of when you think a fertilized egg becomes a human Some people deny that a fetus is a distinct individual from the mother. No different than a tumor. A different blood type shows it is different than a tumor. A human doesn't have two different blood types. > You just use the term "fetus". Correct. I will sometimes use baby, but it can be ambiguous for people who deny a fetus is a baby. Using fetus makes it clear we are talking about a preborn baby. I think it can have a dehumanizing effect so I am not a huge fan of it though. >Do you believe a fertilized egg immediately becomes a human deserving of rights, or is there some additional grace period or precondition such as successful implantation into the wall of the uterus? I believe at conception it is a distinct human which should have all human rights. I don't think the location or size of the human determines if a human is a human. >I was more thinking that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to forbid abortion if they don't allow comprehensive sex-ed, rather than preconditioning abortion on the lack of it.:-/ I think you are generalizing conservatives. In the US you have an option of proabortion with sex ed or antiabortion without sex end. I would also say that if you talked about the basics and didn't go to far, like what happens in the same places you would have support from the majority of conservatives. I think the majority of conservatives just don't trust the government to handle this properly. >What do you think of medically preventing fertilization That is not abortion. I think the majority of prolifers have no issues with it. >preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (eg. hormones such as Levonorgestrel, also known as Plan-B)? This is abortion and should be treated equally.

webmaven 4y ago

> I am not talking about beneficial side affects like pleasure. It is my understanding that the we evolved from asexual to sexual beings not for pleasure but for procreation of individuals that are more resilient than the result of asexual procreation. I am not denying these alternative benefits. Well, sexual reproduction was invented by rather primitive organisms around two billion years ago, but evolution hasn't stood still since then. If you think things like pleasure are mere beneficial side effects, you don't understand much about people either singly or in groups (how do you explain married couples who choose to remain childless?). You might look into bonobo chimpanzees, for whom sex has an even more central social role than for humans. > I don't think rape justifies killing an innocent bystander but would be more than happy with a ban of abortions excluding rape. Many conservatives would agree with you, but many of those would then start defining rape very restrictively. > I just think when a fetus has human DNA and possibly even a different blood type as the mother that shows it is a distinct individual. I don't think you can have a distinct human without it being a person. It is quite dehumanizing in my view. Hmm. I'm not sure what blood type has to do with it, and you've somewhat sidestepped the issue of when you think a fertilized egg becomes a human. You just use the term "fetus". Do you believe a fertilized egg immediately becomes a human deserving of rights, or is there some additional grace period or precondition such as successful implantation into the wall of the uterus? > I am not strictly speaking opposed to sex education, but I don't think it is relevant to whether or not abortion is legal. Just because you didn't have comprehensive sex end doesn't mean you should be allowed to have an abortion. I was more thinking that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to forbid abortion if they don't allow comprehensive sex-ed, rather than preconditioning abortion on the lack of it.:-/ What do you think of medically preventing fertilization, or preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (eg. hormones such as Levonorgestrel, also known as Plan-B)?

_-david-_ 4y ago
>Well, sexual reproduction was invented by rather primitive organisms around two billion years ago, but evolution hasn't stood still since then. I didn't say otherwise. >If you think things like pleasure are mere beneficial side effects, you don't understand much about people either singly or in groups (how do you explain married couples who choose to remain childless?). I don't get what you mean? People can attempt to separate sex from procreation and take steps to try and stop it from happening. I didn't say otherwise. >You might look into bonobo chimpanzees, for whom sex has an even more central social role than for humans. Nothing you are saying contradicts what I am saying. I think you are getting things backwards. The reason why sex is pleasurable or increases social standing or whatever else is to encourage procreation. Sex did not come about for pleasure but for procreation. >Many conservatives would agree with you, but many of those would then start defining rape very restrictively Since you can see the future can you tell me the winning lotto numbers? >Hmm. I'm not sure what blood type has to do with it, and you've somewhat sidestepped the issue of when you think a fertilized egg becomes a human Some people deny that a fetus is a distinct individual from the mother. No different than a tumor. A different blood type shows it is different than a tumor. A human doesn't have two different blood types. > You just use the term "fetus". Correct. I will sometimes use baby, but it can be ambiguous for people who deny a fetus is a baby. Using fetus makes it clear we are talking about a preborn baby. I think it can have a dehumanizing effect so I am not a huge fan of it though. >Do you believe a fertilized egg immediately becomes a human deserving of rights, or is there some additional grace period or precondition such as successful implantation into the wall of the uterus? I believe at conception it is a distinct human which should have all human rights. I don't think the location or size of the human determines if a human is a human. >I was more thinking that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to forbid abortion if they don't allow comprehensive sex-ed, rather than preconditioning abortion on the lack of it.:-/ I think you are generalizing conservatives. In the US you have an option of proabortion with sex ed or antiabortion without sex end. I would also say that if you talked about the basics and didn't go to far, like what happens in the same places you would have support from the majority of conservatives. I think the majority of conservatives just don't trust the government to handle this properly. >What do you think of medically preventing fertilization That is not abortion. I think the majority of prolifers have no issues with it. >preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (eg. hormones such as Levonorgestrel, also known as Plan-B)? This is abortion and should be treated equally.