Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Fetuses are too controversial? (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Fetuses are too controversial?
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nature's goal in sex is continuation of the species. Not procreation. There's an important difference.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Technically, nature doesn't even have a "goal." Things just work out that way. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised that nature can be said to have a goal at all, really. But given that our nature as sentient beings is to frustrate the heck out of "Nature," I can't imagine why "we have sex because it's fun, but sex is only fun because Nature wanted to incentivize behavior that could produce babies, so therefore we cannot have sex for fun without also wanting to produce babies" is considered a reasonable claim.

[ July 10, 2013, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I have sex because sex is fun and I enjoy it. I do not have sex to procreate."

That's why I have sex when I'm not hoping to have more kids. I haven't tried for a kid in over 30 years, but sex is just as much fun as ever.

I hear tell from some of my European friends that Americans are foolishly guilt-ridden about sex. We feel just a little bit like we're taking advantage of an opportunity when we do it purely for pleasure, that honestly wanting to have a child makes it feel more "clean". Maybe I'm just admitting that I'm older than a lot of people and my generation may have had more of those feelings than later ones. But since I and my wife are way past any risk of pregnancy (we worry more about cramps and blood pressure), sex really is just good clean fun these days.

And like all the rest of you men here on Ornery, I still am in the top 1-2% of males when it comes to sexual energy!

[ July 10, 2013, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
...I can't imagine why "we have sex because it's fun, but sex is only fun because Nature wanted to incentivize behavior that could produce babies, so therefore we cannot have sex for fun without also wanting to produce babies" is considered a reasonable claim.

Sex should be fun. It has many great applications. The top reason humans are able to have sex is to procreate. You should also have sex for fun. That does not change the reason for sex to exist. Everyone knows sex can result in pregnancy. You don't have to want a baby to desire sex, but you know that this--getting pregnant--is a possible outcome. Killing an unborn human in an unnatural fashion is not progress. See, humans are not chairs or desks or canoes or tires. So callous and wildly inaccurate comparisons of that nature muddy the waters and take away from the key point that abortion is almost always murder.

I will never stop defending unborn humans from adults. Too many adults are fine with the abortion status quo.

[ July 10, 2013, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Killing an unborn human in an unnatural fashion is not progress.
How young does an unborn human have to be before it becomes progress?

And I'm not joking. I know my answer to this question. But I'm curious whether you think it's okay to abort as a form of birth control prior to some arbitrary point.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Killing an unborn human in an unnatural fashion is not progress.
How young does an unborn human have to be before it becomes progress?

And I'm not joking. I know my answer to this question. But I'm curious whether you think it's okay to abort as a form of birth control prior to some arbitrary point.

Based on fetal development, 20 weeks is a good line. Maybe it should be lower, but reasonable doubt starts to rise quickly the lower the age of the fetus. Plan B does not bother me in the slightest. Que vaya con Dios, clump of cells.

As ever, open to wherever science leads on this matter. If it looks and acts like very young preemies I have cared for as an RN, and now a PA-C, then I am against late termination except in cases of rape, incest, or a true medical emergency. Adults should act like adults in the way that matters most, being responsible. If they cannot, then relatives, friends, church, charity group, and finally the state can step in.

As an aside, if we stopped a lot more of the waste in our government we would have WAY more funding for projects that are critically important. WAY less fluff and lots more pragmatic focus should be on the proverbial menu. But people like to defend their pet projects, even as we fail in one basic area after another.

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:

quote:
Is it your belief that couples only have sex when they want to have a child?
That's actually kind of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Maybe not the beliefs of some/most Catholics).
Actually, it kind of isn't.

And being "special" doesn't keep a fetus from being a parasite. It is just a "special" parasite. We don't actually force women to breastfeed either.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Part 3 Section 2 Chapter Two Article 6 III paragraph 2363:

quote:
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
Why does the Catholic Church prohibit contraception?

And I honestly do not believe that a fetus is a special parasite. I believe a parasite is an organism that enters it's host from outside the host's body and is from a different species.

I also think that prior to the 20th century and the invention of formula, that a woman who did not breast feed their baby might be guilty of criminal negligence. That means that a mother today who cannot procure formula, and can breast feed, is required by law to breast feed. Maybe I'm wrong, but we have plenty of lawyers around who could make the argument for me.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Sex is a biological urge, the evolutionary purpose of that urge being the propagation of the species.

Evolution has no purpose. Purpose cannot exist without intent. Evolution is a process of random changes and elimination, not a plan. Unless of course you believe in intelligent design.

quote:
If every life is that special, the state should take an interest after the birth and provide the best health care and nurturing for every child that lives. If you disagree, be clear and explain why your concern for that special life stops when the baby is born.
The state does take an interest in neonates and infants. They are protected by law from being killed, sold into slavery, abused, or neglected. They are not provided health care by the state, but then they are no different then any other human being. The state does not provide health care for anyone. Or at least it used to not. I guess I'm not sure anymore.

Anyhow, an infant without family or guardians will be taken as a ward of the state. And will be given health care by the state.

Pyr said:

quote:
Needing to be fed is not equivalent to needed to be constructed. A neonate or infant, if properly nourished will continue to develop on its own terms. A pre-viable fetus will not continue to develop without the input of the mother's enzymes and RNA to finish the process. It would be like comparing a stack of cut lumber to a table- sure you could see how it resembles what it's being built to, but until the nails are put in it's not functionally a table no matter how you stack the pieces to resemble one.
A pre-viable fetus will continue to develop if it is nourished, correct? Same as a neonate? Only difference is the nourishment needed? Breast milk, formula, enzymes, RNA. Perhaps a fetus is stacked lumber. But the stacked lumber will turn into furniture on it's own, given the right nourishment.

quote:
And the law has no place dictating which personal belief is right here. You can preach your belifs there all you like, but have no business imposing it on others.
The law dictates values based on personal beliefs. We have a democracy based on the belief that democracy is the best form of government. We outlawed slavery because we believe that slavery is morally wrong. We outlaw murder because we believe that murder is morally wrong. Law is the very action of imposing the will of someone or someones on everyone.

Leftright said:

quote:
The dilemma I have with the pro-life movement is that the concern for the child tends to end at birth.

The same group that demands a woman have the child is the same group that pushes for cuts in the programs that might help that child and give it a chance.

The pro-life movement is mostly comprised of conservatives. Most conservatives do not believe that the state is responsible for the general welfare of the public to the extent that most liberals believe the state is responsible for. So there is no contradiction. They want the same protection for fetuses, under varying circumstances, that infants have. Protection under law against purposeful termination by another human being.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, I'll grant that a fetus doesn't invade from outside the body and is the same species. Other then that, it shares all the same characteristics of a parasite.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Nature's goal in sex is continuation of the species. Not procreation. There's an important difference.

Nature doesn't have goals!!!! ::groaaaaaan::

And how the hell do you continue the species without procreation, other then biological immortality?

Wayward said:

quote:
Technically, nature doesn't even have a "goal." Things just work out that way.
THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!! SOMEBODY ELSE GETS IT! YAY!

Tom said:

quote:
I'm surprised that nature can be said to have a goal at all, really
Yes! Two!
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Okay, I'll grant that a fetus doesn't invade from outside the body and is the same species. Other then that, it shares all the same characteristics of a parasite.

I agree with you there. They do share several characteristics. But so do a motorcycle and an automobile. I do suppose you could call a fetus "parasitic".
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Nature" is too amorphous to attribute a goal to it. But, species do impel themselves to have offspring and continue the genetic line. Are you seriously arguing against that? If so, sex is an urge and producing children is a side effect.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Nature" is too amorphous to attribute a goal to it. But, species do impel themselves to have offspring and continue the genetic line. Are you seriously arguing against that? If so, sex is an urge and producing children is a side effect.

Yes. It just happens to be an extremely successful side effect. Sexual reproduction is a successful accident, just like all of evolution, unless you believe in intelligent design.

Of all the organisms in the world that reproduce sexually, the only one that actually understands that sex is connected with reproduction is the human being. The rest just do it for the same reasons that they eat when they are hungry. And as many ornerians have pointed out, the majority of human beings don't even have sex with reproduction in mind as a goal. They do it because they are urged to and because it feels good. Satisfaction is their goal, not reproduction.

[ July 10, 2013, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Nature" is too amorphous to attribute a goal to it. But, species do impel themselves to have offspring and continue the genetic line. Are you seriously arguing against that? If so, sex is an urge and producing children is a side effect.

Yes. It just happens to be an extremely successful side effect. Sexual reproduction is a successful accident, just like all of evolution, unless you believe in intelligent design.

Of all the organisms in the world that reproduce sexually, the only one that actually understands that sex is connected with reproduction is the human being. The rest just do it for the same reasons that they eat when they are hungry. And as many ornerians have pointed out, the majority of human beings don't even have sex with reproduction in mind as a goal. They do it because they are urged to and because it feels good. Satisfaction is their goal, not reproduction.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree, since what we say doesn't actually matter [Wink] . The analogy to hunger is good, because there is a very clear connection between hunger and nourishment (for the most part). The "lizard brain" within responds to chemical signals of "need" and stimulates the body to acquire what is required for the body to persist. That doesn't make persisting a side effect. I think you're demonstrating a certain Cartesian vanity and hubris that because you can contemplate your nature but don't fully understand it, it therefore needs no more understanding than you can give it.

Pregnant women often have food "needs" that their hapless mates often look on with amusement. My wife was a vegetarian when she got pregnant with our first daughter. One night around midnight she confronted me and demanded I get her a corned beef sandwich. This was no ordinary "honey do..." request. It took me over an hour to track one down in our sleepy town, and she downed it in less than a minute.

Was that "just an urge" and its side effect was she stopped complaining? She was as mystified as I was why she needed it. Or was a sub-conscious or pre-conscious part of her brain/body instructing her to do it for a "purpose".

I understand that evolution is not a directed arrow that leads to somewhere we've yet to figure out, and I understand that mutations are imperfect (not random) changes in the process of genetic replication, and I understand that events "accept" or "reject" those mutations according to a survival/fitness consequence.

But that doesn't mean that the mutations and urges that are retained and incorporated into our genetic makeup don't serve a purpose. If parthenogenesis was a good adaptive strategy, then we most likely would not be having this conversation, because we wouldn't have needed a conscious brain, let alone a brain at all, to survive.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That doesn't make persisting a side effect. I think you're demonstrating a certain Cartesian vanity and hubris that because you can contemplate your nature but don't fully understand it, it therefore needs no more understanding than you can give it."

BTW, I extend the charge of hubris to myself, as well [Smile] .

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Missed you, Grant. Glad to see you back.
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Sex is a biological urge, the evolutionary purpose of that urge being the propagation of the species.

Grant: Evolution has no purpose. Purpose cannot exist without intent. Evolution is a process of random changes and elimination, not a plan. Unless of course you believe in intelligent design.

Atheism is not a religion, but most atheists I've talked to, at one point or another, demonstrate that they think along religious lines.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Analogies are not arguments, but as they have a similar shape to the subject that is under discussion people sometimes think because they understand one they understand the other. There's nothing wrong with that, either, as long as you don't confuse the two. We've had discussions about the biological basis for religious faith before, and we can do that in its own thread again if you like.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you consider a "religious line?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But that doesn't mean that the mutations and urges that are retained and incorporated into our genetic makeup don't serve a purpose. If parthenogenesis was a good adaptive strategy, then we most likely would not be having this conversation, because we wouldn't have needed a conscious brain, let alone a brain at all, to survive.
I think the problem here is semantics. "Purpose" implies intent. Nature has no "intent." It does not do so for any good reason or desire. It does not know good or bad, right or wrong, correct or incorrect. It just is. It does.

However, sometimes what it does has a good purpose. Survival of the species. Survival of the individual. Survival of the next generation. Things we consider "good," that have a direct "purpose."

What happens is that, if an organism does something that is not "good," that does not fulfill a certain "purpose," (that purpose being individual and species survival), then that individual dies before reproducing and his genes are lost. The basis for the behavior is lost. If the behavoir helps keep the individual alive to reproduce, then the basis is retained in the next generation, and possibly strengthened since the off-spring may mate with others that have similar behavior.

All of which is to say that nature does not provide direction of what any individual should or should not do. Yes, sex results in procreation. But that was not Nature's "intent." And so you cannot go against Nature's intent. There was none to begin with.

As long as a species continues to reproduce at a replacement rate, it doesn't matter if people or animals or viruses do things as they were "intended" to be done. Nothing was designed with intent. So it is meaningless to say something was "intended" to do something, that this or that is it's "purpose."

You can talk about consequences. If all animals in a species stopped having sex, then the species would die off. But you can't talk about procreation being the purpose of sex.

Nature doesn't care.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:

quote:
Is it your belief that couples only have sex when they want to have a child?
That's actually kind of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Maybe not the beliefs of some/most Catholics).
Actually, it kind of isn't.

And being "special" doesn't keep a fetus from being a parasite. It is just a "special" parasite. We don't actually force women to breastfeed either.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Part 3 Section 2 Chapter Two Article 6 III paragraph 2363:

quote:
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
Why does the Catholic Church prohibit contraception?

And I honestly do not believe that a fetus is a special parasite. I believe a parasite is an organism that enters it's host from outside the host's body and is from a different species.

I also think that prior to the 20th century and the invention of formula, that a woman who did not breast feed their baby might be guilty of criminal negligence. That means that a mother today who cannot procure formula, and can breast feed, is required by law to breast feed. Maybe I'm wrong, but we have plenty of lawyers around who could make the argument for me.

"Eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized."

Deus Caritas Est

Being willing is different from wanting. The Catholic Church does not require couples to be fertile to marry them. And, indeed, allows "natural" family planning measures.

[ July 11, 2013, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Nature doesn't care."

Why then do we eat?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Nature doesn't care."

Why then do we eat?

Because our bodies feel hunger if we don't.

It is a happy coincidence that it also keeps us alive. [Wink] [Smile]

It is a subtle difference, but significant in the theory of evolution through natural selection. Nature did not decide that, to keep us alive, we should eat. But, when a organism began to eat other organisms and it kept that organism alive, it reproduced and the species thrived. Those that did not eat other organisms did not thrive as well. [Wink]

So you can eat or not eat. Nature doesn't care.

If you don't eat for a long time, you will die. Nature doesn't care.

But the genes that made you not eat won't be around for the next generation, so the world will be dominated by those who do eat. Which is fine by Nature. Nature doesn't care.

In a hierarchy of what we feel is important, eating to stay alive probably tops the list. But eating for pleasure and for social bonding can also be considered important. We assign the importance. We assign the "purpose." Not Nature.

Nature doesn't care.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Because our bodies feel hunger if we don't.

It is a happy coincidence that it also keeps us alive."

So there is no direct connection between eating and surviving? "Feeling hunger" isn't a determinant of anything; starving is, but we eat even when we're not starving.

"Nature did not decide that, to keep us alive, we should eat."

No, but eating serves the purpose of allowing us to survive. We eat because of an urge, not as an intellectual choice.

"Nature doesn't care."

Clearly semantics, now. Think of "purpose" as "practical result, effect, or advantage", which is one of its definitions. The purpose (practical result, effect and advantage) of eating is that you survive. The purpose (practical result, effect and advantage) of sex is the propagation of the species.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The purpose (practical result, effect and advantage) of sex is the propagation of the species.
A slight semantic change and I would agree.

A purpose (practical result, effect and advantage) of sex is the propagation of the species is correct in my book. Not "the."

"The" implies that it is the one result, effect and advantage of sex, and obviously it is not the only one.

And "purpose" according to my old $0.49 dictionary is "an intended or desired result: goal." So it implies a goal, which implies a direction. And Nature has no direction.

I think the word "consequence" fits the idea better. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, at least we agree that one purpose of sex is procreation. My wife and I will rest easy (I mean, after a certain point) knowing that we didn't just have sex in order to have another child.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Missed you, Grant. Glad to see you back.

Atheism is not a religion, but most atheists I've talked to, at one point or another, demonstrate that they think along religious lines.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Finally, some flippin love in heah. Missed all of you too, dark prince. Spent the last 9 months on a job without good internet access, working outside mostly.

I think I remember that Al had mentioned equating nature with God once before. Maybe that is why he seems to endow nature with a kind of intent or will or design.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:


Being willing is different from wanting. The Catholic Church does not require couples to be fertile to marry them. And, indeed, allows "natural" family planning measures.

OK, you got me there. I agree that willing/accepting is different then wanting. But you will notice that I gave myself a little wiggle room when I said that it was "kind of the doctrine of the Catholic Church".

Not sure if wanting and willing/accepting are close enough to slip through the wiggle room or not. I agree that "willing/accepting" is the better term to use.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think I remember that Al had mentioned equating nature with God once before. Maybe that is why he seems to endow nature with a kind of intent or will or design."

May you curl up with a Good Book, perhaps Spinoza. Nature has no design, will or intent. Neither do automobiles, but the purpose of the car is to get you from one place to another. If we didn't have them, perhaps we would use pogo sticks for the same purpose. They'd also be much easier to understand than cars, which would be a blessing.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I appreciate all the precision and such, but it seems like too many place a higher priority on disagreeing with me about the top reason humans have sex INSTEAD of debating why protecting unborn humans from unnatural termination is crucial to remaining a moral nation.

I repeatedly said there were many reasons for sex, but THE reason we are capable of sex is to continue our species. "THE" means most important, NOT the only reason in the entire universe. Anyone who reached that conclusion did so in spite of what I typed multiple times. Not very good comprehension. Good strat in arguing a point... maybe...

So here you go folks:

Wired for Sex

"We are programmed to do so," sex therapist Richard A. Carroll, associate Northwestern University psychiatry and behavioral sciences professor says. "Asking why people have sex is akin to asking why we eat. Our brains are designed to motivate us toward that behavior."

The idea that humans are hard-wired for sex reflects an evolutionary perspective, according to University of Hawaii psychology professor Elaine Hatfield. "Evolutionary theorists point out that a desire for sexual relations is 'wired in' in order to promote species survival," she says. "Cultural theorists tend to focus on the cultural and personal reasons people have (or avoid) sex. Cultures differ markedly in what are considered to be 'appropriate' reasons for having or avoiding sex."

What's Your Motive?

Why do you seek sex? Motivations generally fall into four main categories, according to psychologists at UT-Austin who asked more than 1,500 undergraduate college students about their sexual attitudes and experiences:

Physical reasons: Pleasure, stress relief, exercise, sexual curiosity, or attraction to a person
Goal-based reasons: To make a baby, improve social status (for example, to become popular), or seek revenge
Emotional reasons: Love, commitment, or gratitude
Insecurity reasons: To boost self-esteem, keep a partner from seeking sex elsewhere, or feeling a sense of duty or pressure (for example, a partner insists on having sex)

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/why-people-have-sex


Can we get back to discussing why it is "good" to terminate the life of a 3rd--or nearly 3rd--term baby now?

[ July 12, 2013, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"I think I remember that Al had mentioned equating nature with God once before. Maybe that is why he seems to endow nature with a kind of intent or will or design."

May you curl up with a Good Book, perhaps Spinoza. Nature has no design, will or intent. Neither do automobiles, but the purpose of the car is to get you from one place to another. If we didn't have them, perhaps we would use pogo sticks for the same purpose. They'd also be much easier to understand than cars, which would be a blessing.

Yes, but the car had a designer. The car was built for a purpose by some individual with an intent and goal. That is the difference.

I have not read or studied Spinoza yet. But it seems that Spinoza was something of a pantheist who did equate the natural universe with God. If you consider yourself a Spinozist, Al, then I think my memory and reading of your past and current remarks are accurate.

Just reviewing some of the stuff Spinoza seems to have written gives me a better idea of where you seem to be coming from. Sorry but I can't really get into alot of depth right now. I honestly never got through the enlightenment philosophers past Descartes and I need to review them all again

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward,

I liked all your posts and think similarly to what you have said.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If this pic is correct, then take a look at a 20 week old fetus:

http://www.hisbranches.org/eo/fetal/pics/20w.jpg


And here is a kinda surprising poll result:

Most Americans would favor sweeping new national restrictions on abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the poll also shows many Americans remain conflicted in their views on abortion.

By a margin of 59 percent to 30 percent, respondents to the new poll said they would favor a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/abortion-poll_n_3575551.html

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yes, but the car had a designer. The car was built for a purpose by some individual with an intent and goal. That is the difference."

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, "purpose" in this discussion means utility, not intentionality. Nature doesn't require sex for reproduction, but it works really well and the body overall depends on it, now. That's no different from the hunger urge or the automobile. Using that analogy, consider the massive infrastructure that has developed to support the car. From a design perspective most cars today are based on very similar engines, fuels and suspensions, but that's only because other dissimilar designs were (mostly) discarded for various reasons. The common overall design we have today works best with the infrastructure that is in place today. (Note that Fords and Chevys are separate species so you wouldn't expect to see a Ford roll out of a Chevy factory or to use Chevy parts in a Ford.) When electric cars become more mainstream we'll see the infrastructure adapt. If it doesn't, electric cars will be just another great idea that never quite made it.

If you want to quibble about a "designer", I'm happy to do that, but that probably should happen in a separate thread. I offer that knowing that most of the discussion will (as usual) revolve around semantic matters.

[ July 12, 2013, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By a margin of 59 percent to 30 percent, respondents to the new poll said they would favor a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy."

Reading through the whole article, there are a lot of conflicting responses, including that a majority (63%) of respondents believe the decision on having an abortion is best left to the woman and her physician, rather than controlled through federal law (26%).

I think polls like this most clearly demonstrate that there is no universal opinion on the matter of abortion. Taking that into account, any federal law limiting or banning abortion affects 100% of women, and that alone is a good enough reason not to have sweeping laws in place.

BTW, you never did answer my question: Why is the life of a fetus before 4 months not as precious as a fetus at 20 weeks?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A pre-viable fetus will continue to develop if it is nourished, correct? Same as a neonate? Only difference is the nourishment needed? Breast milk, formula, enzymes, RNA. Perhaps a fetus is stacked lumber. But the stacked lumber will turn into furniture on it's own, given the right nourishment.
Not correct. If removed from the womb, a pre-viable fetus is not sufficiently complete enough to maintain it's own development. It might survive a short while, but eventually the fact that it can't sustain normal bodily functions and properly respirate or absorb nutrition will catch up with it. It can't develop those functions on its own, because it doesn't yet have the mechanisms required to direct its own cells to differentiate properly to build the required structures; that's a function of the mother's womb and viability depends on whether it's been sufficiently completed that it can finish the process itself.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
A pre-viable fetus will continue to develop if it is nourished, correct? Same as a neonate? Only difference is the nourishment needed? Breast milk, formula, enzymes, RNA. Perhaps a fetus is stacked lumber. But the stacked lumber will turn into furniture on it's own, given the right nourishment.
Not correct. If removed from the womb, a pre-viable fetus is not sufficiently complete enough to maintain it's own development. It might survive a short while, but eventually the fact that it can't sustain normal bodily functions and properly respirate or absorb nutrition will catch up with it. It can't develop those functions on its own, because it doesn't yet have the mechanisms required to direct its own cells to differentiate properly to build the required structures; that's a function of the mother's womb and viability depends on whether it's been sufficiently completed that it can finish the process itself.
Links please. I asked once before.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"By a margin of 59 percent to 30 percent, respondents to the new poll said they would favor a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy."

Reading through the whole article, there are a lot of conflicting responses, including that a majority (63%) of respondents believe the decision on having an abortion is best left to the woman and her physician, rather than controlled through federal law (26%).

I think polls like this most clearly demonstrate that there is no universal opinion on the matter of abortion. Taking that into account, any federal law limiting or banning abortion affects 100% of women, and that alone is a good enough reason not to have sweeping laws in place.

BTW, you never did answer my question: Why is the life of a fetus before 4 months not as precious as a fetus at 20 weeks?

#1) Varied opinions are interesting, but that does not dissuade me from defending the unborn from early and unnatural termination. Americans don't believe this is an either or matter. Abortions are still allowed, just the horrific late-term practice is being hammered out of existence.

#2) The potential is just as precious either way. The law functions best with precision, and 20 weeks is a good line with the information we have. It can always be changed as science unveils further mysteries in the future. Why tie yourself to an idea permanently? Flexibility is wise.

[ July 12, 2013, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is not the kind of answer that you can base law on. You've said that all preborn children have the right to life:
quote:
I believe this responsibility should begin BEFORE birth. The fetus is alive, it is a person, and it has the right to life.
How can you draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, well not so much a right here...

If you don't want to tie yourself to an idea permantently, how can you even choose to "draw a line" for all women now? Especially when most people think the mother should make that choice for herself.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
That is not the kind of answer that you can base law on. You've said that all preborn children have the right to life:
quote:
I believe this responsibility should begin BEFORE birth. The fetus is alive, it is a person, and it has the right to life.
How can you draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, well not so much a right here...

If you don't want to tie yourself to an idea permantently, how can you even choose to "draw a line" for all women now? Especially when most people think the mother should make that choice for herself.

Why do you think 24 weeks is better than 20? Also, I am being pragmatic. I want 3 steps total, but 1 in the desired direction is a good start.
Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The law functions best with precision, and 20 weeks is a good line with the information we have.
The medical consensus is 24-28 weeks. There is no good, qualified information to support 20 weeks. No fetus can survive if born that early. Only one has survived to date at until 21 weeks. Odds of survival don't reach 50% 24. 20 weeks makes no sense at all.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1