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

Good question.
Intentionally choosing to have sex is not a life-style that hurts or kills other people. Au contraire, it's fun!

Note that having sex for fun is not an intent to get pregnant and then having an abortion. There is nothing to hurt or kill while having sex for fun. There isn't even a fertilized egg, until the male loses control and ejaculates. "Sorry dear, I was about to pull out but the telephone rang and it startled me. So sorry......hehe".

Having an abortion certainly is very painful for the woman. Having the baby is also very painful or may even kill the woman. Is that what you mean?

You may want to rephrase your question, maybe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

abortion is older than civilization so the forced birthers can sod off

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By default, birth must be older.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Social Darwinism is only opposed in the bible. "Go forth and multiply" does not take into account the "exponential function" which demands social Darwinism. But that does not prohibit having sex for fun.

ALL other species practice social darwinism. None of it is ever "for fun". Having menstruation is nature's way of practicing social darwinism. Look at a beehive, the drones (males) get killed to make room for the "little ones". Social Darwinism.

OTOH, extending life is contrary to social darwinism and often results in pain and suffering even death of others. But we don't pay attention to that do we. No condoms for Africa, you want sex....... Have that baby and watch it die from hunger and thirst.

Average life-span is a result of evolutionary processes and natural selection and is..... well...
Natural Social Darwinism.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

This is social darwinism. It's seen more as an 18/19th century thing that was a driving force behind European colonialism, and drastically lost favour after the performance of certain infamous personalities during WW2.

Sure, we can get reptillian about the problem, but is that effective problem solving for a human?
Does branding all 55+ year olds as oxegyn theives sound appealing to you? Even if I was selling a really spiffy NWO 10 year leap plan?

 

What does "appeal" have to do with anything? You think you can escape the implacable functions of Nature and natural selection?

Let me remind you my reptilian friend, we are already in the sixth extinction event. Too many people, not enough oxygen and too much CO2. And we have culled too many trees for our "pleasure" to convert CO2 into oxygen, which is what humans breathe.
Hence we need to cull the population or nature will do it for us. Zero population growth will happen, whether we like it or not.

This lecture by professor emeritus Albert Bartlett will open your eyes. It's about the "exponential function" and addresses the choices humans have to voluntarily curtail breeding or nature will do it for us. And that certainly won't be fun.

 

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. After that post, all I did was respond to the succeeding comments generated by that post.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ar...aving-an-abortion.161580/page-15#post-3564685

I was making a fallacious comment about the reasoning of a fallacious diety regarding race and mysticism.

What I expected was that people who should be familiar with my thoughts on religious matters would have recognized the sarcasm. Apparently I give them too much credit for their comprehension.

I didn’t initiate any flaming or trolling, that all started with Tiassa when he decided to use the posts as a justification to brand me a white supremacist by dredging up past disagreements.

I brought up the reference to the left leaning sites because I was accused by Write4U of visiting the wrong news stations.

It was Tailgunner Tiassa engaging in his anti supremacist crusade that injected the Michael Brown, the Duggers, and the Elizabeth Warren references into the discussion, I simply responded to his nonsense. How is posting the facts of the Michael Brown case mocking the murder of anyone? And I wasn’t mocking a white supremacist terrorist, although they deserve to be mocked, I was mocking Tiassa for comparing me to one.

A thread that was supposed to be about abortion that devolved into a discussion about the ethnicity and parentage of Jesus. Everything I posted was in response to comments brought up by other posters, and it originated as a response brought up by the OP. All the rest of the off topic subject matter was injected other posters, mainly Tiassa.

As usual, you’ve got this whole issue assbackwards. I never made it personal until accusations were leveled against me first. It was Tiassa who decided to reignite the beefs of the past, not me. The devils advocate stuff had nothing to do with any of the past discussions. So it’s more like you two misguided ideologs have an itch to scratch with me.

I could care less whether or not I have your attention. If and when I do want it, I have no problem addressing you directly to get it. And if you want to keep a thread on topic, I suggest you don’t bring up content from unrelated past discussions to make your idiotic points.

 

As I said, we are not there yet, although perhaps in the near future some hardline politician could come to power and militantly cull the oxegyn theives.
It is not necessarily a problem that poses two diametric solutions, but since you are taking this path, let's make it simple :

Would you prefer to live in a world where the individuals had a heightened sense of responsibility and self control? Or would you prefer to live in a world where the pleasure principle is numero uno but it was policed by a militant power with the authority to abort individuals, families, communities or even countries so that the demands of exponential sense gratification doesn't exceed production?

It's one thing to talk about how the world we live in makes us completely subservient ... it is another to talk of orchestrating human society under a political system that extols similar authority (and not come across as machiavellian in the same breath).

 

Does it always have to be those extremes? Is a trillion dollars better than being dead?
It's not a matter of either/or. The two completely seperate activities are not mutually exclusive for reasonable and responsible people. Experiencing pleasure is not a sin!!! It's a blessing!!!!

It's what keeps us alive. "Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction"

 

Who decides what constitutes a heightened sense of responsibility and self control? And how do you enforce its practice without some sort of agreed upon social authority? Do we simply rely on the honor system for behavior on the public streets and in the marketplace?

 

While it can be a complex subject, in the simplest form, self control begins, at least, with the self ... hence self control. If there is too much undue focus outside of that, it tends to indicate a heavily diseased state (as in a drug addict may be seen to temporarily submit to an environment until such time as they are capable of wielding self control). I'm not sure why you are conceiving of the problem in such a dire extremes.

 

Yet here you are, extolling the virtues of social darwinism ... so the obvious question is what criteria do you utilize to identify the oxygen thieves?

 

the opposition to abortion is purely religious based. given that abortion is older than religion its bs

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You framed the ideal of responsibility coupled with self control, which would imply that self control is required to act responsibly. Responsibility varies according to societal dictates, so accordingly self control would as well. For example engaging in homosexuality as an expression of love in Saudi Arabia could result in your death, where as doing so in the US would be considered a basic right. Or consider abortions in El Salvador, where a woman cannot get an abortion for any reason, even if the mothers life is at risk. So wouldn’t you consider it essential to establish a reasonable social authority beyond the self to determine what that ideal standard of responsibility should be?

 

If "societal dictates" are immersed in pursuing values that extend only as far as the body persists, there is no real question of self control .... only, as you correctly surmise, affiliation to some sort of political agenda which changes according to landscape. I was suggesting a sense of responsibility to something other than divisions of society, class, nation etc. I suggested that perhaps global climate issues could serve as an introductory catalyst to galvanizing such responsibility, or at least give rise to a radically different economic model ... as opposed to trying to nut out some solution in the current economic landscape.

I understand what you are saying about political hierarchies, but my point is that for as long as our "means of production" props up our current political systems (which is basically industrial nations globally competing with each other for slices from a rapidly dimishing pie), its just a game of sustaining the disease while treating the symptoms. No solutions will be forthcoming.

IOW, if this planet slaps us with a series of rude awakenings about our collective lifestyle choices, we can either perish under a barrage of such slaps, or adjust ourselves accordingly. The ultimate adjustment, IMHO, is to not view this planet with exploitative intent. We are guests only. That is the source of responsibility and the basis of self control .... and not mere adherence to some sort of legal agenda born of the economic needs of an industrial nation or even identification based on sexuality.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

You gave them too little credit for their comprehension, including of your previous and all too familiar "thoughts" on race and religion. You are much easier to see through than you seem to realize.
Poe's Law applies. Those are jokes you can't make.

 

Whatever you say Professor Xavier.