A secular debate about abortion

[Blind groper]

Your views here are interesting, Seth.

They are quite the opposite of what I would expect from a religious non believer who is also libertarian. A respect for individual freedom would imply a respect for a person's right to express themselves sexually without restriction. This can be done, these days, without pregnancy consequences, if good contraception is used. While many fail in this, leading to unwanted pregnancies, I do not believe that is terribly different to the old days.

People are people. Sexuality has not changed, and guys have always run around desperate for 'a bit of nookie'. Girls have always been passionate and keen, and rather frequently willing to take chances. I suspect that your belief in the "sexual morality" of prior generations is simply naive. Our parents and grandparents were just as randy as we are today.

When I was 14 years old (50 years ago), my father organised me to go to this old guy's home once a week to play chess with him. He was a WWI veteran, and his wife, and his friends and family had mostly died off, and he was lonely. I enjoyed our chess, and I enjoyed our conversations even more. He destroyed any naive ideas I might have had about my forebears. He told me of sexuality at the very early 20th century, and about how people back then used to party. His stories made my own sexual experiences since then seem pretty damn tame.

In my youth, I enjoyed sex with as many gals I could talk into it. I loved it, and the women I shared my bed with gave every indication of loving it just as much. Human sexuality is potent! People love to bonk. I would be most hypocritical if I were to show disapproval now that I am much older, much uglier, and married. So, quite simply, if guys and gals want to bonk, good luck to them.

[Hermit]

Your views here are interesting, Seth.

They are quite the opposite of what I would expect from a religious non believer

Seth is not a non-believer. He is an agnostic who founded the Church of Tolerism™.

Going by his dogmatic style and absolutist ideology I am not at all surprised by any of his quirky ideas.

[Blind groper]

the Church of Tolerism™.

Oh, but I am a long standing proponent of tolerism. I have been training all my life in tolerism, to tolerate the maximum dose of red wine or Irish whiskey. I suspect that good ol' Jim has been doing the same for gin.

[JimC]

the Church of Tolerism™.

Oh, but I am a long standing proponent of tolerism. I have been training all my life in tolerism, to tolerate the maximum dose of red wine or Irish whiskey. I suspect that good ol' Jim has been doing the same for gin.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth.

Your last post makes you seem to be a terrible prude.

Only because you have a penchant for assuming that the author of an argument subscribes personally to that argument. Evidently you are having difficulty realizing that it's possible to entertain an idea without necessarily agreeing with it, and it's also possible to take a debatorial position that may be diametrically opposed to one's true personal beliefs for the purposes of playing "Devil's Advocate" to advance the debate.

I would like to see you do that with the pro-atheist position, and the pro-choice position. Funny, you never play Devil's Advocate for those positions. Care to advance those arguments?

[Seth]

Your views here are interesting, Seth.

They are quite the opposite of what I would expect from a religious non believer

Seth is not a non-believer. He is an agnostic who founded the Church of Tolerism™.

Going by his dogmatic style and absolutist ideology I am not at all surprised by any of his quirky ideas.

Not quite. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™ but not really an agnostic. Agnosticism, in it's pure form, says "In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist." (Wikipedia)

I maintain that humanity may or may not possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities may or may not exist. In other words, while I myself have not seen sufficient rational evidence of the existence of a deity, I cannot rationally judge that others have not seen such evidence merely because they cannot, or will not produce "scientific" evidence of this contact. This is in part because experiencing evidence of a deity may be a highly personal event only perceptible to the subject of the contact by the deity, to which contact others may not be privy, by divine intention. This reasoning is consistent with my understanding of the beliefs of, in particular, Christians. In other words, God may choose to reveal him/her/itself only to select persons and conceal him/her/itself from others. If God is omnipotent, or merely sufficiently advanced, there is nothing in physics or science that makes this impossible, any more than a secret communication between two individuals that you are not privy to is impossible just because you are not privy to it.

This is why, for example, all "scientific" explanations for the events that occurred at Fatima on October 13, 1907 fail to debunk or dispel the claims made by those present at the event. Just because scientific evidence of some singular phenomenon caused by an intelligence is not recorded or experienced by a "scientific" observer does not mean that the event did not occur.

But I also believe that it's not "unknowable" that a deity exists, or doesn't exist. I believe that when perfect knowledge of the universe is obtained, then a conclusive answer will appear. That humans are currently incapable of perfect knowledge is entirely irrelevant.

[Seth]

Seth.

Your last post makes you seem to be a terrible prude.

Only because you have a penchant for assuming that the author of an argument subscribes personally to that argument. Evidently you are having difficulty realizing that it's possible to entertain an idea without necessarily agreeing with it, and it's also possible to take a debatorial position that may be diametrically opposed to one's true personal beliefs for the purposes of playing "Devil's Advocate" to advance the debate.

I would like to see you do that with the pro-atheist position, and the pro-choice position. Funny, you never play Devil's Advocate for those positions. Care to advance those arguments?

There's plenty of devils to advocate those positions here. Who would I be debating with? Nobody here is interested in taking the opposing position and arguing it honestly anyway, so what's the point?

[Seth]

Your views here are interesting, Seth.

Thanks.

They are quite the opposite of what I would expect from a religious non believer who is also libertarian.

Surprise! The world does not necessarily fall into line with your expectations, does it?

A respect for individual freedom would imply a respect for a person's right to express themselves sexually without restriction.

Quite right, so long as those expressions initiate neither force nor fraud on others.

This can be done, these days, without pregnancy consequences, if good contraception is used.

Mostly, yes. But as I said there are known failure rates for all forms of contraception other than abstinence. Although technically, if you as Christians, even virginity is not a bar to having a baby if God wants you to have one...though this appears to have only happened once so far. But I think we can agree that divine insemination, should it occur, is an exception to all rules.

While many fail in this, leading to unwanted pregnancies, I do not believe that is terribly different to the old days.

Then you need to review the literature regarding the incidence of abortion pre and post Roe v. Wade.

People are people. Sexuality has not changed, and guys have always run around desperate for 'a bit of nookie'. Girls have always been passionate and keen, and rather frequently willing to take chances. I suspect that your belief in the "sexual morality" of prior generations is simply naive. Our parents and grandparents were just as randy as we are today.

I'm sure they were. So what? That's not the issue. The issue is acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions and the consequences thereof and not shifting the burden of those consequences to others to escape or evade them, particularly not by killing the inconvenient child that was created by a voluntary sex act.

When I was 14 years old (50 years ago), my father organised me to go to this old guy's home once a week to play chess with him. He was a WWI veteran, and his wife, and his friends and family had mostly died off, and he was lonely. I enjoyed our chess, and I enjoyed our conversations even more. He destroyed any naive ideas I might have had about my forebears. He told me of sexuality at the very early 20th century, and about how people back then used to party. His stories made my own sexual experiences since then seem pretty damn tame.

Sounds like a pervy child molester to me.

In my youth, I enjoyed sex with as many gals I could talk into it. I loved it, and the women I shared my bed with gave every indication of loving it just as much. Human sexuality is potent! People love to bonk. I would be most hypocritical if I were to show disapproval now that I am much older, much uglier, and married. So, quite simply, if guys and gals want to bonk, good luck to them.

No issues at all with what you say, all I'm saying is that people who choose to engage in sex voluntarily should not be sanctioned by society to evade the natural consequences of such actions, because it's detrimental to the life they create and to society as a whole for them to get the notion that everyone else is going to bail them out of responsibility for their actions.

Have all the sex you like, but if you knock the girl up, do the right thing, marry her and raise the child together. That's the responsible, adult, socially-appropriate thing to do.

[MrJonno]

The natural consequence of having sex is generally nothing or a miscarriage/natural abortion.

As for Seth's views on abortion, he would get disowned by his religious fanatic terrorists brotherhood if he ever came out as an atheist so any views are purely based on convenience

[Seth]

The natural consequence of having sex is generally nothing or a miscarriage/natural abortion.

Or producing a living fetus that carries through full term. Interesting that you elide this consequence.

As for Seth's views on abortion, he would get disowned by his religious fanatic terrorists brotherhood if he ever came out as an atheist so any views are purely based on convenience

Naughty boy, have to spank! :spank:

[surreptitious57]

Have all the sex you like but if you knock the girl up do the right thing . Marry her and
raise the child together . That is the responsible adult socially-appropriate thing to do

Why do you have to get married : Why cannot you be a parent without a ring on your finger and a piece of paper
declaring your union : For what has any of that got to do with raising a child : Marrying a woman just because you
get her pregnant is a ludicrous idea : The only time you should marry someone is when you both love each other but
even then it is not necessary : Are you going to love them any less if you do not marry them : Of course not : Though
it is perfectly acceptable if a couple do want to get married : It should just not be the natural default position how ever

[Seth]

Have all the sex you like but if you knock the girl up do the right thing . Marry her and
raise the child together . That is the responsible adult socially-appropriate thing to do

Why do you have to get married : Why cannot you be a parent without a ring on your finger and a piece of paper
declaring your union : For what has any of that got to do with raising a child : Marrying a woman just because you
get her pregnant is a ludicrous idea : The only time you should marry someone is when you both love each other but
even then it is not necessary : Are you going to love them any less if you do not marry them : Of course not : Though
it is perfectly acceptable if a couple do want to get married : It should just not be the natural default position how ever

One thing marriage does is bind the couple together legally and financially, so when one wants to bail, it's far more costly than just walking out.

It also implies a level of commitment to the relationship that goes beyond "I got mine, you get yours." And that's good for the kids, because they don't do well in single-parent households, as a rule.

[camoguard]

I don't think kids need parents. I think they need a society that trains them on what to expect and how to get ahead. Any adults could potentially parent and so the actual parents are not necessary, to me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ireland still in the dark ages? Bigoted, anti-woman? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23277590

[Animavore]

Ireland still in the dark ages? Bigoted, anti-woman? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23277590

Yes. We still need abortion available for women carrying children with fatal foetal anomalies and the morning after pill available without having to be grilled by doctors.

There's an argument there for more freely available abortion in the early stages too, I'm sure.