The relationship between abortion and mass production and slaughter of animals
People often argue that a fetus is a human life and that all human life should be valued equally. I don't see how we as a society could do that. More specifically I don't see any logically justifiable reason to hold human life to a higher importance than all life. The concept of all human life being equal but more important than lower intelligence life is ridiculous. To me the logical step is to make a value hierarchy for all life. Obviously a fetus would be lower on that than the woman carrying it. Any thoughts?
Comments (88)
One either accepts that or one doesn't. Personally I don't. I don't have any use for concepts of essences, or souls (Minds are what interests me). But I don't regard it as illogical that others do accept it. After all, I accept that sentient life is worthy of more consideration than non-sentient objects. But I cannot logically deduce that principle without circularity.
As David Hume said 'It is not contrary to reason that I should prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of my finger'.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On one hand you claim that speciesism is ridiculous, but then claim that we ought to have a moral hierarchy of all life.
I would argue that anything that can feel (sentience), and more specifically, anything that can suffer, is worthy of being considered ethically important. If a fetus can feel, then it is important to consider its experiences. If it cannot feel, then it might as well be a rock. There's no use anthropomorphizing rocks, trees, water molecules, and a clump of fetal tissue. Nothing happens to them that is morally important outside of our own attachments to them.
How do you get from "we have a sentimental notion that all human life is equal" to "non-human animal life ought be treated as equal to human life"? It doesn't seem to follow.
I classify any living organism that has a nervous system as sentient. I have not yet made up my mind about living organisms without nervous systems - it's a work in progress. But sentience for me is a property that lies on a continuous spectrum, not an all-or-nothing property.
If we're extending moral consideration to other beings because they are "alive" or "feel" or are "sentient", then perhaps even the lower forms of life are worthy of some moral consideration. We almost unanimously agree that torturing an animal is morally wrong, and many of us would qualify that on the basis of unnecessary harm being morally unjustifiable. Even a beetle doesn't like being kicked down a road; to do so contains some small degree or variation of the immorality that we would ascribe to unnecessarily harming or destroying a human.
It's easy to agree on things like "unnecessary harm" (I.E sadistic torture), even in the case of a beetle in my opinion, but what is less obvious in some cases is whether or not harm or slaughter can be considered necessary or "justified".
Ancient man ate meat often out of necessity as the fat and protein (and it's preservability with salt and low temperature) was either the best opportunity for nourishment in the environment (applicable to a jungle setting) or a necessity for survival (such as during a long winter). As our ability to sustain ourselves on animal-harm-free diets on a wide-spread scale continues to develop, I would argue that there is some moral onus for us to begin to attempt to do so. With that said, a fully nourishing vegan diet can be well out of the average budget range of many middle and lower class families and individuals even in the first world. Furthermore it is questionable whether or not a switch to completely non-animal based agriculture would be economically feasible.
In short, we raise animals and slaughter them because of a prevailing desire to survive which we casually and almost unanimously float as a moral necessity. The act of terminating a fetus could be for the survival of the mother given possible complications, and on the same moral grounds that we essentially use to continue eating meat could be used to terminate even a late term pregnancy (given acceptable levels of seriousness in complication). If there are no complications then the moral argument for abortion must look elsewhere for justification. During the first term of pregnancy, many would argue that a fetus is not yet even a sentient being (cannot "feel") and as such would not even be extended the same moral considerations that we would extend a beetle. Once the fetus is said to be "sentient" we could freely extend the "don't harm it unnecessarily" consideration that is commonly extended to many animals. However all pregnancies carry inherent risks of complication and even death to pregnant women. What degree of risk of death inherently justifies a pregnant woman's decision to abort a pregnancy I cannot say, but most people will eventually cave in to the acceptability of even late term abortion as the risk of death for the mother approaches 100% if no abortion is performed. Beyond this point, a woman's unwillingness to endure the pains of a pregnancy is used by some as a defense of second and third term abortions. In this instance what seems clear is that the further into the pregnancy a woman is, the less suffering she has left to endure before the pregnancy reaches it's natural conclusion, and therefore the weaker the defense is in and of itself. Pain and suffering can be subjective though so it's persistently murky moral territory as always.
The comparison I would like to draw between mass slaughter and consumption of animals and abortion is that both exist on a spectrum of moral guilt-worthiness, where the suffering and risk of death that we incur by abstaining from them (what approaches "necessity") serve as the factors which mitigate, and in extreme cases seem to completely dissolve, that degree of moral guilt.
Would it not be simpler to simply contradict the view that a fetus is a human life or indeed, until it is self-sustaining, a life of any kind?
Johnathan Swift, author of "Gulliver's Travels", wrote a scathing sarcastic newspaper editorial suggesting that the solution to the "Irish Problem" (the potato famine) was to eat Irish babies. The English landlords had created the problem in the first place by raising rents so high the peasants could only survive by growing almost nothing but potatoes which was a recipe for disaster when a blight struck their crops. Anyway, Swift proposed that it was every Englishman's duty to eat Irish babies and help solve the crisis and for his efforts he received several thousand letters asking where they could buy their babies and find recipes.
The issue is economic and has little to do with anything else. For thousands of years Chinese peasants used to abandon female newborns on the side of the road as useless baggage that could not help support their family. Yet, a female anthropologist was once asked by a primitive tribe she was studying what her birth control pills were for and they where shocked. The entire village surrounded her asking why she didn't like babies. Birth control and abortion were unknown to them and the idea that anyone would not want as many babies as they could have was simply strange and inconceivable because money was just as unheard of as well.
Notably, the US is the wealthiest country in the world and those complaining about abortion the loudest are in the Bible Belt which has the worst social record in a country with the worst social record in the developed world. In other words, those complaining the loudest are the ones with the highest rates of abortion and who support the capitalistic system the most.
Quoting MonfortS26
Why?
Why not?
Because the woman would have other people with emotional attachments in her life and the fetus has not developed many if any such attachments. The fetus has no current place in society. The fetus is dependant on the woman for survival. The fetus has no sense of self awareness before 18 months.
I'd be interested to see where you got these statistics
I like most of what you said, but where does quality of life come into play. Couldn't it be morally right for the mother to abort if the life of the mother and the life of the fetus were subject to more suffering as a result of the child being born?
So you think that this issue is more important to consider from an economic standpoint instead of moral?
There are many moralities, but few that ever focus on their own economic roles in society. In the US we like to say we have the best justice that money can buy because morality is not our strong point as a nation. Conservative complain nonstop about abortion, but seldom adopt children or even vote to support those in need. In fact, the Bible Belt has the worst statistics and spends all their time blaming everyone else. If no one addresses the economic issues the problem will never be addressed constructively.
This sounds a little sentimental, no? Attachments in themselves aren't moral or immoral, so I'm not seeing how they can be justification for a moral hierarchy.
Society dictates the nature of a fetus's being?
Regarding quality of life for the fetus, being aborted is usually interpreted to be a universal negative from their end. There may be extreme cases providing exceptions to this, but generally any life is taken as better than no life at all.
When it comes to the mother, indeed her future suffering can and should be considered, but given that adoption is readily available as an alternative to rearing one's own children, post-natal suffering may not be a relevant moral consideration in today's world..
Peter singer (IIRC) made an argument to explain the morality of infanticide where in the "old world" a fairly strong argument from necessity can be made. If there is nobody else willing to care for a child that otherwise cannot be cared for (given resource scarcity), then for the survival of the rest of the family it could be argued that laying your baby on a hill is of practical necessity. The severity of the "quality of life" to others is relevant here to the strength of this as a moral defense, and in a contemporary landscape post-natal "abortion" surely is unjustifiable, but these are the same moral lines which could be used by the mother to justify abortion simply because she does not want to ensure the pre-natal suffering. As I said before the closer to a full term pregnancy a woman gets, the less suffering she would be avoiding by terminating the pregnancy, and therefore it's strength as a moral defense is lessened.
Edit: spelling and grammer was left un-proof read in error
The attachments are there. Less attachments would mean less impact if the life were taken away. There would be less consequences to killing a grown woman than her fetus.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I would say that society has the power to take away the life of the fetus so yes.
But as you said it's not about having a justifiable reason; it's about having a sentimental notion. We have a sentimental notion of all human life being equal but not a sentimental notion of non-human animal life being equal to human life.
So what? Ought we have a sentimental notion of non-human animal life being equal to human life? That doesn't make sense. The having of a sentimental notion isn't the sort of thing that can be prescribed.
It would be emotionally and otherwise attached to its mother.
Abortion is a crime when it's used such that the life of the fetus is brought to an end because the woman has behaved in a sexually irresponsible manner. If the life of the fetus is brought to an end because (1) the woman was raped [based on the principle that one shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences of what was forced on them], or (2) the woman's life is endangered by giving birth [based on the fact that society shouldn't have a right to decide for an individual who risks losing their life], or (3) the family of the woman and her partner does not have the means necessary to care for the child [based on the understanding that in a relationship / marriage, the couple may inadvertently end up having a child despite their best attempts not to], then the act loses from its immorality and can quite possibly be regarded as a necessary evil.
But the point of contention is always that abortion ends up being used by women like Amy Schumer, who mock the loss of life, and use it as a tool to justify their sexual promiscuity. That's the problem, that's what's shameful, that a life is ended FOR THAT REASON. Look at that:
http://www.emandlo.com/amy-schumer-doesnt-feel-bad-about-your-abortion/
So it's the way abortion can be used to justify a different approach to being a woman that is the problem - it justifies selfishness, mockery of the responsibilities of being a mother, and allows the privilige or right to be used in a way that abuses and oppresses others - in this case the newly conceived, without giving any real benefits to the mother. It's not saving her life or dignity, but on the contrary, it's harming them - it's dehumanising her.
Same thing regarding the killing of animals. It's one thing to kill a lamb because you're hungry, and it's a different story to kill the lamb because you love hunting (for fun). While both killings are immoral, one of them screams to the Heavens for justice, and the other one is just a necessary evil.
Just as one human to another (as opposed to some ridiculous political crap), there is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's psychologically precarious to endorse such a thing.
And as for the religious right, their view involves something called "God centered." It means that everything in life should be approached with a sense of sacredness.
I'd advise that you not start with superficial stuff and work your way down to the basics. Start at the basics and come upward. That way you'll be more likely to get what's really cool, genuine, and meaningful about the right. I'm not very rightist, myself, but I have a lot of respect for what they bring to human life. I don't like to see that smeared with shit.
What do you mean by abortion being used to justify sexual promiscuity? Is she saying "I'm allowed to be sexually promiscuous because I can have an abortion?"
No - but she is using that as a crutch to help her be sexually promiscuous more easily. It's morally reprehensible to use another human's life - in this case the life of the fetus - for that purpose.
What do you mean? By necessary evil I meant a situation where all the choices one can make, lead to evil/harm. Do you not think there are such situations?
Quoting Mongrel
Yes I agree.
Quoting Mongrel
Okay - I'm not really sure what you mean by this, so please clarify.
Quoting Agustino
I disagree with both of these exceptions. Abortion is not morally permissible in cases of rape or lack of family care. In the first case, the fetus is not to blame for the woman being raped, the rapist is. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist, which is wrong. In the second case, the care of the child becomes society's obligation. To abort the fetus simply because the family cannot provide for the child doesn't excuse the risk the couple took in having sexual relations. If they didn't want a child and knew they wouldn't be in a position to raise one, then they ought not to have engaged in such behavior in the first place.
How is she using a human life to be sexually promiscuous? It's not as if sexual promiscuity is a consequence of having an abortion or as if having an abortion makes sexual promiscuity easier. She might never have had – nor ever have – an abortion and yet still be sexually promiscuous.
Are you sure you disagree? I said in those two cases abortion is still evil - only that less so than in the case where it's used as an escape from the consequences of sexual irresponsibility. Whereas in the latter it screams to the Heavens for justice, in the former it's merely evil.
Now I agree with your point. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist. But not to abort it is to punish the woman for the crimes of the rapist. Hence a necessary evil - both choices are evil. Hence why the state shouldn't make the choice.
Now you may be right about the family conditions exception. I was a bit reluctant to put that in my first post even. But I feel that given the predominance of left-wing culture, it's a good place to be relative to where we are today. But to attempt to argue the position further, I would say that for a married couple, sex would serve both as a means of spiritual union, and as a means of procreation. To deny a married couple the possibility of using sex as a means of spiritual intimacy seems to me an evil. But I do agree that they shouldn't be reckless about it and get abortion after abortion, quite obviously. Nor should they purposefully and consistently avoid procreation - there should be a sensible reasoning for that - such as they're not financially ready to have a child.
I wrote about this many times in the past, but mine is a version of natural law ethics - except that sex has a dual purpose, one spiritual (intimacy) and one physical (procreation), and the fulfilment of either one is generally a lawful use of the activity. Promiscuity, fornication, sex outside of marriage, etc. all would be unlawful according to that criteria.
Because she kills the fetus, and thus refuses the natural consequence that emerged out of her being sexually promiscuous.
Quoting Michael
It's not as easy to be promiscuous if you have a child. Many men would be put off by that for example.
Quoting Michael
Sure. So?
That doesn't explain how she uses the foetus to justify her sexual promiscuity.
Furthermore, what do you mean by refusing the natural consequences? She certainly understands that her being pregnant is a consequence of having sex.
And it's unclear why this doesn't apply to the monogamous woman who accidentally becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, despite their best efforts. It's not like having (protected) sex with a hundred different people is more likely to lead to pregnancy than having (protected) sex with a single person a hundred times.
Your condemnation of abortion stems from it being used to enable sexual promiscuity. But given that sexual promiscuity doesn't require ever having an abortion, this proposed enabling relationship falls apart.
Debatable. Why would a man interested in a one-night stand care if the woman has a child?
Okay boss.
Quoting Michael
Yes, she understands that, and therefore she gets rid of the fetus in order to get rid of the pregnancy which was the natural consequence of it. And she does that because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Why? Because she wants to continue being promiscuous.
Quoting Michael
Assuming those two are engaged, having sex for them is a means of achieving intimacy. Having promiscuous sex on the other hand is damaging towards intimacy, and it's more like using the other in order to get something for yourself, and the other using you in order to get something for themselves. Doing that, and then killing a life in order to avoid the consequences, now that's shameful and low - in fact it's doubly shameful and low.
Quoting Michael
No, my condemnation for it stems from the fact that a life is destroyed for infantile and immoral reasons.
Quoting Michael
Sure.
I'm a little wary of classifying evil in degrees. If something is evil, then it's evil, and that's that.
Quoting Agustino
I don't see this as punishing the woman. She was harmed in the act of rape, not in becoming pregnant.
Quoting Agustino
But I'm not denying them anything. They are free to engage in certain actions that might lead to certain consequences.
Quoting Agustino
I'm highly skeptical that the latter can be achieved by the former.
Well that's wrong. Women don't get an abortion just so that they can continue being promiscuous. Rather they get an abortion because they don't want to to have a child.
Casual sex can be intimate. That you wouldn't feel any intimacy isn't that those who engage in it don't. Have you ever considered that the thing that distinguishes those open to casual sex from those that aren't is their respective threshold for intimacy?
Then a case needs to be made for sexual promiscuity being infantile and immoral.
(Note: I read this as "from the fact that a life is destroyed as a consequence of infantile and immoral behaviour")
Yes but certain actions involve multiple evils, which is what I mean when I say less evil. For example promiscuity -> pregnancy -> abortion. That's two evils over there, with the latter evil being used as a way to escape the consequences of the former - which is what is outrageous. It's doubly immoral. Whereas rape -> pregnancy -> abortion => only one evil that is caused by the woman herself (the abortion). I believe in that case it's a decision she herself must take. The state shouldn't choose between the two evils. The woman, depending on her character, will either choose to save the life of the child even though it may be very difficult for her, or will choose that it's not right for her to have to raise the child of a rapist, or she simply can't do it for whatever reasons, and therefore choose abortion. She will be responsible for that choice, whatever it is. However, the state shouldn't enforce that kind of thing on the woman.
Quoting Thorongil
So you don't see having to carry and raise the child of a man who raped you as an evil?
Quoting Thorongil
I agree.
Quoting Thorongil
Why?
Yes. I think there are, and that's the appropriate circumstances for using "necessary evil." It's tongue in cheek. But I assumed you were talking about the religious right's viewpoint. They aren't usually flippant about evil when addressing something as serious as murder (which is how they deem abortion.)
I don't know any moderate Republicans who favor outlawing abortion. It's usually religious people who do and they aren't necessarily rightist (although they may throw their lot in with rightists as a way to influence events.)
Yes, and they don't want to have a child because that's blocking their right to be in control of their lives - which is codename for being promiscuous >:O
Quoting Michael
>:O It's impossible per the definitions I'm using of intimacy. In the conception used there, sex - which always has a spiritual element to it - will always be harmful with multiple partners, simply because every partner change involves a rupturing (psychologically) of what was previously united through the act, and thus does violence to the soul.
Quoting Michael
Sure - I did that in the past, but that's not what this thread is about.
Does that imply that I am?
Well, no. There's more to being in control of your own life than just being able to sleep around.
Right. So given that I consider the notion of the spirit and the soul to be nonsense, I can dismiss your criticism of abortion as resting on nonsense premises.
So you don't want to defend your anti-abortion views? You're just saying that you have them?
No. I'm sure you're very sincere. But your explanation of a rightist attitude toward abortion doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the religious right nor mainstream rightism. Do what you will with that information. Peace :).
As for the abortion topic, I mostly agree with Thorongil. But I'll add that abortion is a pretty fair example of the principle, "two wrongs don't make a right."
lol of course not. If all I did was parrot the same explanations that we've heard before, nothing would change. I need to make new ones, find new ways to conceive the same issue, that's the only way to convince people who aren't already convinced. Arguments are merely ways of pointing to a truth that is beyond them. I need to find better ways to point to the truth that is beyond the general rightist arguments.
Yes but what does this "being in control of their lives" concretely mean for them? It means precisely being able to sleep around. If they have the control, that's how they'll use it.
Quoting Michael
Granting that you don't consider the notion of soul, spirit, psyche etc. as meaningful, you can conclude that someone who would consider these notions meaningful would agree with me with regards to abortion.
Quoting Michael
No I did defend them. I defended them for folks who do understand what their soul, spirit, psyche, etc. is or refers to. You don't understand that. That's fine. My plan isn't to convince you of my whole worldview in a thread that is about abortion, that would be silly no? To make the argument air-tight I'd have to convince you of the whole world-view that supports it - of course I'm not going to do that, simply because it's impractical.
You have a different conception of intimacy. Intimacy for you is probably a similar feeling to feeling close and open to, for example a friend. That kind of feeling you have when you feel you can share anything with someone. For you folks who like casual sex have a lower threshold for intimacy, they can feel intimate more easily than others. Those who like strict monogamous sex have a much higher intimacy threshold - it takes a lot more for them to feel intimate. But this is NOT what I'm referring to as intimacy in my post. This is a whole different conception. This conception is true (meaning such a thing as what you describe does exist) - but simply fails to notice the REALITY of what I am pointing to by intimacy in my own conception, which is different than the reality you have (so far) observed.
That is true - but a very limited view of things. Not all people who have sex do it as a means of alleviating sexual appetite. Not all people who have sex do it motivated by the desire to alleviate sexual appetite. Not all people do it out of lust in other words. The couple I was talking about for example does not attempt to satisfy their sexual desire as end in itself. Rather they attempt to satisfy their desire for oneness as end in itself - otherwise known as love.
Quoting Agustino
The vast majority of people have sex because of their lust, are you kidding?
Quoting Agustino
Uh, no. Your couple's already failed in their intentions if they're fumbling after desire. And sorry, love does not require me sliding my penis into a woman's vagina. Sex can only ever be a necessary evil, and if one does not need to partake in it, then they ought not to.
It seems to me that your vague appeal to some kind of transcendent "oneness" is a pretty bad excuse for you to fuck somebody. If you can only love someone through having sex with them, then I hate to break it to you, but you're doing it wrong.
Yes, the vast majority is not all of them.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
And loving something (or someone) doesn't include desiring it (or them)? If I love God, then don't I desire God?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes it doesn't require that.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes except that "fucking somebody" wouldn't satisfy the natural desire for unity with the beloved in this case - in fact it would frustrate it. You deny there is any such natural desire. I don't - that's the difference between us two.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I agree - if you can only love someone by having sex with them, you're doing it wrong.
And 'women shouldn't be promiscuous' isn't controversial? Move to Saudi if you feel that way, dude.
Stop worrying about what other people think and get straight what you think. That's what I was saying. Then just let what you say come from your heart. If it convinces, great. If it doesn't.. so be it.
Well it is less controversial for sure I tend to think. For one, promiscuity is known in our Western heritage as a vice. Pretty much until the Sexual Revolution it was known in the modern world as a vice as well.
You don't want after God. You need him.
Quoting Agustino
Great, so we agree that you don't need to have sex!
Quoting Agustino
Why is it morally necessary to satisfy our sexual instincts? And no, I don't deny that there is natural desire, only that one should fight against it and not be in bed with it, ;)
Okay so if I need Him, I can then either want Him, or not - that is still open to me.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Of course we agree that you don't NEED to have sex to be in a relationship or love someone. However this has nothing to do with whether you will have it or should have it or not.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I didn't say it is.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well I am fighting against that desire that you're speaking of. But I'm speaking of another desire, of which you don't seem to be aware of. Instead you're merely confusing one for the other.
Yep.
Quoting Agustino
If you don't need to have sex, there is, therefore, no reason for you to have it.
Quoting Agustino
Then explain what you mean by "natural desire."
Quoting Agustino
Sex is an ugly act that is best performed as quickly as one can and only when one must. You seem to be idealizing sex like some glorify war, and I'm not buying it.
Not really. Puritanism comes and goes. The oldest known literary work graphically details a sex act that went on for seven days. Woo Hooo!
The sexual revolution was one of many where we realized... oh yea, we're animals. No big deal. It does require some fortitude from men to accept a world where feminine power is not veiled (whether it's coming from a drag queen, a bona fide woman, or just some regular male feeding his kids or whatever).
Men who have psychological problems about women will be afflicted. I'm a woman, so I don't know what it's like to have that kind of problem, but I feel for anybody who struggles with mental illness.
Good, so therefore it is possible to want the beloved, there is no immorality in that, just as there is no immorality in wanting God.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure, but following that logic, I don't need to even be in a relationship. Probably all I need is air to breathe, food to eat, and water to drink. So the truth is that just because I don't NEED it, doesn't mean that there is no reason to do it. I don't need to read a book, and yet I do have a reason to do it - I want to know and learn more. But that's not a NEED.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Doing it "quickly" just makes it shameful and ugly indeed. What you're basically saying is this: use someone as a means to your own pleasure (obviously driven by your lust), and all you have to do is know that this is your lust driving you, and you can't do anything about it, so just give in to it, but get it over quickly. That's weakness to me, not strength.
I'm not idealising sex, I'm saying that the sexual act doesn't have to follow that logic that you have illustrated above. Instead the logic can very well be for unitive purposes. This doesn't seem to get to you, but as you can see there are some of us for whom sex isn't used to get pleasure from the other when our lust compels us to. Instead we feel a desire to be one with the other, in body and in spirit, and that's what CAN - doesn't have to - lead to the act. What motivates such a desire? Because the other feels more ourselves than we are - like a piece of puzzle which is completed by another. Then it is done out of love, and it is holy. I could just as well have added - since you claim to be a believer - that God wouldn't have created something if it was purely evil. The mere fact that sex is possible indicates that it has a rightful use, when it is good.
I'm not a Puritanist. Heister Eggcart is more Puritanical in his views, ie sex is always evil - than I am. I actually think sex has the potential to be exceedingly good - only that all the misuse of it prevents most people from ever climbing a little above their animal nature.
Quoting Mongrel
The sexual revolution was the time when we forgot that we are also spirit, and all that was left to identify with was our animal nature.
Quoting Mongrel
What does this have to do with anything? Abuse of power - whether it's coming from men or from women is wrong. So yes, a world where women abuse their bodies in order to gain advantages over men is a crooked world. A world where promiscuous sex - in other words USING others as means to an end which is your own pleasure - isn't only wrong, it's petty. Being a servant to your lust, such that when your lust orders you to go have sex, you go do it - that's unworthy of the dignity of mankind. The fact that people are willing to humiliate themselves, and go to great lengths just to have sex, that is a real tragedy - and the fact that it's getting normalised, that's shameful. Even Lenin knew - when at the Communist Party a woman said sex is like drinking, when you're thirsty you go drink, when you feel lust, you go have sex - Lenin responded: "yes, but not from a dirty glass"
I am also reminded of a story of Alexander the Great I heard. Alexander had just finished conquering Persia. One of his generals brought the best prostitutes in the city to him, and said "Here are the best the Persians have!", and Alexander, angrily replied "How dare you come to me with such trifles, when I had just conquered the largest empire in history? Be gone before I have you killed!" Even Alexander knew - no wonder, he had Aristotle teaching him ;)
Quoting Mongrel
>:O No I actually think that all honorable men and women will be affected to see the humiliation that some women and men go through for a piece of meat. Isn't it hilarious? The lust says go left - you go left >:O Really, sometimes I get angry, sometimes I feel sorry for them, but sometimes I just laugh like crazy seeing what some do ... how they can go on living in shame is beyond me, but I'll give you that it's hilarious.
It doesn't mean precisely that. It could also mean being able to spend the evening at the pub or being able to go spelunking at a moment's notice – or even being able to relocate to Africa and provide medical aid to poverty-stricken children. And both the celibate and the monogamous can be in control of their lives.
So this equating with promiscuity is simply false.
No, because they might believe either (or both) that foetuses don't have souls or that casual sex doesn't "do violence" to one's soul.
That's how arguments usually work. You either find some common ground from which to start or you convince someone of your initial premises. If, for example, your argument ultimately rests on the claim that the Bible is the word of God (as a moral authority) then the first step is to defend this claim. If you don't then your opponent is free to reject this claim, and so the rest of your argument doesn't even need to be considered. Remember, you're trying to convince someone who doesn't agree with you, not preach to the choir.
So if your argument is that abortion is wrong because it enables sexual promiscuity and that sexual promiscuity is wrong because it does violence to one's soul then you need to show that a) we have a soul, that b) sexual promiscuity does violence to one's soul, and that b) abortion enables sexual promiscuity.
Cool. It's hilarious. Government has no role to play in it.
Ehmm nope, I don't think that follows at all :D
Want does not follow need.
Quoting Agustino
Perhaps you don't need to be in a relationship, that is true. But one does still require love, which does not depend on sex.
Quoting Agustino
What? Have you not read anything that I've written so far? You've said the complete opposite of what I've argued this whole time...
Quoting Agustino
No, sorry, this is pure mumbo-jumbo, Agustino. You are NOT one in body with the other when having sex. All that has happened is one genitalia fitting into another. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. Now, you can believe that some spiritual event has taken place because sausage meets bun, but this does not uproot what very simply, and physically, happens during sex.
As I said before, and which you have failed spectacularly to understand,
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sex is merely a problem that requires solving, not some nuanced spiritual decadency. Indeed, if you're after a closer union with God, one must further empty all of their desires in order to more fully be filled with Love. Satisfying sexual desire flies in the face of this, however you cut the mustard. Simply look to Jesus for the kind of life one ought to live if by love's grace. I'll wait while you find me the time when Jesus had sex in order to more closely commune with his Father.
>:O yeaaaaaah
Quoting Michael
Sure but in this case it certainly includes fucking around as you call it.
Quoting Michael
I don't think they can think that if they understand their souls. There cannot be two women in your life, just the same way there can't be two suns in the sky - or two pieces of a puzzle which can go in the same place.
Quoting Michael
My point isn't to convince you - it's to lay out an argument. You have to judge an argument on its terms. You cannot swap terms and plug in your conceptions. My argument is valid.
I do. And this is where politics comes into play... or it would if we were in the same country. If we were both in the US, I'd tell you that I agree with Hanover that the SCOTUS overstepped its authority with Roe V Wade. But the ultimate effect is that abortion is now normalized in the US. When the vote comes to amend the constitution (and I could see that happening in the next 50 years or so), most Americans will agree that abortion is a right because they're used to it. I think if they held the vote today that's what the majority would vote.
I gather from what you've said that your main concern is not that abortion is murder, but that it seems to you to have something to do with sexual freedom. By and large, this isn't an American attitude. It exists here, but it's lunatic fringe.
Sure, it doesn't NECESSARILY follow it. But I never claimed it did.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I don't think one NEEDS love. Rather one wants love, because they feel, know and understand that it is good.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No I have, I'm saying that your sex is a necessary evil argument, simply entails that logic that I've outlined there. it's a reaction to that logic.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, sorry, this is pure ignorance, Heister. You are NOT just having a physical experience when having sex, just like the words in a book aren't just ink on a page. Things have meaning - sex does too.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
And did I say that you have to have sex in order to be in closer communion with God? Of course not. But remember the metaphors used in the Bible. Christ and his Church are like the bride and groom. Man and wife. Sex as a unitive practice applies only between man and wife, but it symbolises the theosis that can be achieved between man and God, on a different level of course. That's why the Bible says the married people become ONE flesh - not two, not three, not five hundred. That's also why sex outside of marriage was considered an evil - it prevents the goal of ONE flesh.
So you're basically telling me that you agree they did the wrong thing, but you don't want to remedy it because you like it and folks are used to it. So I guess then if someone does something wrong, but it's good for us, then we shouldn't seek to remedy it. Nice principle to have that, no? :P
Quoting Mongrel
I don't care what is "American" or not. I care what is right and just. And no - my problem with abortion is that it's a MURDER which is used to justify sexual immorality - which is even worse than it just being murder. Killing a thief who attacks you is also murder, and yet that's in self-defense and clearly not a moral tragedy. So the fact that it's murder alone is not sufficient.
The state has an obligation to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individuals within it. That includes the fetus of the raped woman, so the state would have every right to make her carry the pregnancy to term. The child need not be raised by her, but it ought not to be prevented from being born.
Quoting Agustino
No.
Quoting Agustino
Answering this might take us too far down a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say, I have not been convinced of what's so special about sex besides its conferral of physical pleasure. The latter is simply not enough to recommend it to me.
Sure then I would have no qualms with it, apart of course from worrying what will happen to the child?
Inked words on a page are only meaningful when we understand what they mean. Sex may be the same way, but you've yet to explain your way out of intentions and why sex means anything beyond its physical context.
Quoting Agustino
You've argued that sex brings about a oneness, a kind of love. If you think that, then sex is then a means toward communing more closely with God, which would be a highly dubious claim.
Going back to my first response here, if sex does not bring someone closer to "God", then there really is no good reason for you to have sex in the first place.
Quoting Agustino
This is metaphysical gibberish which does not escape the fact that a couple's bodies are NOT one when having sex.
Well, there are things called orphanages, which have existed for a very long time and still do. Are they as ideal as having a mother and a father? No. But they serve their purpose adequately enough, if they are properly supported.
But I already told you what sex means. It means becoming one, spiritually and physically, with the beloved. It's a symbol of unity. The way theosis is symbolised by Heaven and Earth uniting at the end-times for example.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That oneness that sex (can) bring about is only an imperfect image of the oneness that can be achieved between man and God through theosis after death.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Do you read your Bible literarily? :P Or is it only sex that you like to read literarily?
Perhaps.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, :’(
Quoting Agustino
Tell me, Agustino, why is sexual chastity a virtue in Christianity?
Quoting Agustino
You seem to be, as there's no reason for you to continually say that there is physical unity between two people during sex when there is not. Period.
I believe abortion is moral up to the end of the second trimester. I spent 7 years working in neonatal intensive care. My principles on the issue are firm and informed.
Quoting Agustino
Then you have my respect even if we disagree.
Native Americans performed abortions before white people got here. They used one of my favorite plants to do it: mayapple. I doubt it had anything to do with justifying sexual immorality. More likely it was about what the tribe could support. Anyway.. there's not much point in our trying to come to agreement on this because you aren't likely to ever have any influence in my part of the world and I won't have any influence in yours. So we can definitely agree to disagree.
Boring! O:)
>:O
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Correction: sexual chastity OUTSIDE of marriage is a virtue in Christianity. Sexual chastity while married is NOT a virtue, that's precisely why St. Paul told married people in Corinthians not to deprive each other - even as they were expecting great tribulations and needed to fortify themselves (for which chastity was better). For those who are devoted entirely to God - the monks - chastity exists. But for example for priests - in Eastern Orthodox Christianity of which I am a part - chastity isn't required. Priests can be married, if they are married, then being chaste is not a requirement.
As for why sexual chastity is a virtue outside of marriage? Because (1) to be a slave to lust is harmful to yourself and others, (2) sex was designed for procreation (includes child rearing) and for unitive purposes which can both be unachievable outside of marriage and with multiple partners. God created one Eve for Adam, which complemented him - was, even literarily, part of him.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Why don't you tell us why you think sex is always evil then? Why don't you think spiritual and physical union through sex can be achieved?
So is this argument:
Those who have casual sex are righteous
So-and-so has casual sex
Therefore so-and-so is righteous
Validity is only half of it. You also need to show that your premises are true.
What do you mean by having someone in your life?
If sex were okay then monks wouldn't fear it like the plague. Paul wasn't a dummy, he realized that most people are sexually obsessed lunatics, so he wrought the idea of marriage chastity in with both the Jewish and Roman traditions that also stressed a similar value for family and marital vows.
The monks fear it like plague because sex outside of marriage is a grave sin - obviously. Also being a monk is incompatible with being married - thus for them, in all circumstances sex is a grave sin.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
And? Christianity isn't also Jewish? How can Christianity be against Judaism and its values? The Jews are God's Chosen people. Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Remember that.
Sex is a form of love.
Therefore sex allows one to know God.
It seems Heister and Agustino disagree on the second premise. Is sex a form of love? I say no. It's neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for love.
If God is love then to know love is to know God – to actually love is to actually God.
If God is love and if sex is a form of love then sex is a form of God.
So, this whole "God is love" thing seems grammatically incorrect. Either that or there's equivocation at play here.
Man, you go from 0 to 100 with the religious lingo, I tell ya. I also never said Christianity is against Jewish values. I actually said the opposite, but, you know, English is hard.
I don't even entirely agree with the first premise, shit.
Actually, that's not exactly what Comrade Lenin told me... >:O
And promiscuity is sharing God with the world.
It's a rather vague phrase, certainly. It's from 1 John 4:8. Here's the full verse, which explains why I phrased it the way I did: "He who does not love does not know God; for God is love."
I disagree with the second premise. Sex is a part of a form of love. The form of love - which includes but is not limited to, nor necessarily must include sex - allows an imperfect, or better said incomplete knowledge of God, for it still remains within the realm of the created. The love of Adam and Eve for example doesn't just include sex - that's not all that exists in the love among them. Sex, however, can also be one of the components. When it is, the act represents a smaller completion of the human being. Adam gets back Eve, which is really a part of him - they are of one body - even literarily in the story. But there is a greater completion, and that occurs when the two are submerged into God.
In other words the human being is completed sub specie durationis through love between a man and a woman (which again doesn't necessarily include sex), and sub specie aeternitatis through communion and union with the divine. And love between a man and a woman is the completion of love of neighbour - for it presupposes and builds on it. One is first of all my neighbour, and only secondly my wife.
The monks sacrifice the good sub specie durationis, for the greater good sub specie aeternitatis. In that hierarchical relationship it makes sense to sacrifice one good for another greater good.
One should also add that no stool ever sits on two legs. Three are needed to stand. Think of the similarity with the Trinity - the community of 3. Man, wife, and God. They (the man and wife) are glued together by a common purpose and desire, which binds better than any other glue - God. Because they submit first to God, they have each other for eternity. As Kierkegaard says, the lovers have to swear by the eternal - by the uncreated, for they cannot swear their love by each other - that's perishable. The divorce rate is 50%+ because each submits himself or herself only to their own self in the modern world. They each have separate, and different purposes and desires. And thus their arrangements are inherently unstable. It's called built to fail really.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
So St. Paul put together the idea of chastity with the idea of marriage because folks are sexually obsessed lunatics. And yet, the idea of marriage and chastity existed already in Jewish culture. Marriage was an institution ordained by God, including the idea of chastity before but not IN marriage. Why then is sex in marriage always evil?
Quoting Agustino
I must admit to getting fatigued by the religious terminology, like evil, with regard to morality. Plus, this all is getting off topic, now, so...
Back to the subject of gruesomely knifed fetus bits, yeah! (L)