Or buying the wrong shiny toys ;-)
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Or buying the wrong shiny toys ;-)
cutmeamango
Banned
Well, he said "the starting phase of a [human]", and that it is.
If you mean a naturalization of the (common) philosophical estabilishment of what a "person" is, there would be less certainty yes, but all signs point that hormonal processes as early as 4 weeks can already affect the fetus. As in, possibly influence development of the 'brain and other markers' (-> personality).
So if we were to say that the "person" is "who you are", you are already being "built or shaped (or something
)" pretty early.Yes, and there are living organisms in their billions in a single turd. There's potential for human life in every cell of the body, under the right circumstances.
There is a point when a fetus becomes sentient and that's the point where things should get complicated.
IpsoFacto
Member
Then I have to say that it's pretty depressing in this day and age to think that some adults can't grasp the simple concept that sex is ultimately intented for procreation. Lack of foresight shouldn't even be an issue to begin with.
Education is key, we can all agree on that. But at the same time, is it effective? Sex-ed at least, according to what I'm used to hear has more to do with telling kids what sex is, what the diseases are, but what I feel is missing is the instructor's ability to say "Kids, this is how sex works, but don't actually do it till you reach a level of proper maturity."
Sex is not intended for procreation, it results in procreation.
cutmeamango
Banned
There is potential? You mean the DNA and cloning plausibility or futuristic full organism synthesis through stem cells as the circumstances?
Sperms and ovules alone (and separate
) are not potential for human life. And sentience is indeed complicated. You mean that as being aware of experiencing or, experiencing per se? If the first, I can't remember when I first did that.
Devolution
Member
Sex can be for bonding, for strengthening social networks, to relieve stress and to procreate. Sex has never been solely about procreation. This is a myth.
cutmeamango
Banned
That's why he said ultimately.
The problem I have is "intent". There is no intent. That would imply there is some plan for procreation from the outset.
What hasn't Romney said?
Basically the rape baby ideology is that if you were raped, God wanted you to have that specific baby at that specific time so you better not question God.
What does the bolded even mean? When two people consent to sex, it is intended for whatever purpose they choose, be that procreation, pleasure, or whatever else. The intent of any action can only be determined by the actor, not the action itself.
As for sex-ed, instructors absolutely have the ability to say what you ask. They also have the ability to tell kids how to have sex in ways that don't unintentionally lead to pregnancy. Contraceptive use was covered in detail when I took sex-ed in high school.
Proper education and access to contraception contributes hugely to cutting down on unintended pregnancy. That's why sex-ed programs that cover contraception lead to fewer teen pregnancies than abstinence only programs.
freenudemacusers
Member
Join the military. Free babies for everyone!
ReBurn
Gold Member
So when humanity evolved into sapient beings sex was instituted first as a social contract, second as a way to relieve stress, and finally as a means for reproduction?
cutmeamango
Banned
Why do living organisms try to perpetuate their existence? Billion dollar question. Many theories though.
Why reproduction? Perpetuate existence.
Why our penis go inside a vagina? Our reproductive organ system function like that.
So yes, there is an intent to "sex".
heliconsoul
Member
You are aware that the status of an action can evolve over time yes? What sex meant to the first Homo Sapien does not apply now.
Sex wasn't even understood to result in reproduction for quite sometime. It was all attributed to the gods. Fucking is done for pleasure, it results in pregnancy. Goats don't fuck thinking "OMG I want a kid", they fuck because its instinctual.
There is no intent. Its a result. Reproduction results in perpetuation of species. There is no plan to replicate. Again, you don't have dogs get together and bark to one another "OK, time for PUPPIES!! OMG I'M SO HAPPY". Intent implies there is some plan.
in·tent1    [in-tent]
noun
1.
something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds.
2.
the act or fact of intending, as to do something: criminal intent.
3.
Law . the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object.
ReBurn
Gold Member
It's instinctual to propagate the species. If intent actually mattered then people would only get pregnant when they intended to, not because it just happens. We are first biological creatures, then social. We need to eat, drink and sleep or we die. We have sex to propagate our species. The social stuff is what we added ourselves, but it doesn't change the fact that we are first animals. But believe whatever makes you feel better.
We eat, drink, and sleep because when we do, we stop feeling hungry, thirsty, and tired. We have sex because it feels good, and sometimes for reproduction.
There are biological signals to encourage us to do things that are good for the propagation of the species, but that doesn't mean someone doing those things intends to fulfill their biological purpose. They do it because they want to (for whatever reason), and the rest follows on its own.
Offer something more than forced shock and arguments from incredulity. Or are we just going to see you making "wow" and "I can't believe" driveby posts for the foreseeable future?
The only creature who has figured out anything regarding reproduction is humans. Sex is instinctual, not propagation. That is a result of getting your jollies.
As I've said, there is no intent for sex. It exists because it results in replication.
All animal species have sex to have sex.No creature other than humans has any concept that sex results in propagation of their species. So how can you have sex to propagate your species if you don't even know that is what is occurring?[/quote]
We and all other animals fuck to fuck. There is an instinct to fuck. There is no instinct, no concept of reproduction. That is a result of fucking. No animal makes any plans, no animal has any intent to breed, they simply do. And until recently, when we finally figured out what sex results in, we were in the same boat with all the other animals.
Reproductive organs are not sentient. Their existence results in reproduction. At no point do my balls say "Well, let's make us some sperm so we can make babies!!". Otherwise there would be no gay people as they do not reproduce. Their balls and ovaries would veto their homosexuality.
I really do need to get some sleep, but....
1) I saw your edit
2) Nobody responds to my posts after a bluff is called or an assertion is rebuffed. But I'm not going to be a dick and and spam "ah ha!" for half a page. But yes....THIS was the post that you felt more comfortable responding to in such a manner. If anything, YOU were making a drive-by post.
Never seen such hair-splitting in my entire life.
Maybe intent was the wrong word, but the reproductive system has a main purpose and that purpose is for reproducing. (I bet everyone is going to leap on this statement because it changes the subject a bit, but) Gay man can and do reproduce. For the sake of my argument, consider a man who has a wife and kids but still is in the closet. Homosexuality doesn't prohibit a man from reproducing. He just can't do it with another man, of course.
1) I saw your edit
2) Nobody responds to my posts after a bluff is called or an assertion is rebuffed. But I'm not going to be a dick and and spam "ah ha!" for half a page. But yes....THIS was the post that you felt more comfortable responding to in such a manner. If anything, YOU were making a drive-by post.
Never seen such hair-splitting in my entire life.
Maybe intent was the wrong word, but the reproductive system has a main purpose and that purpose is for reproducing. (I bet everyone is going to leap on this statement because it changes the subject a bit, but) Gay man can and do reproduce. For the sake of my argument, consider a man who has a wife and kids but still is in the closet. Homosexuality doesn't prohibit a man from reproducing. He just can't do it with another man, of course.
Having read your posts, I find this especially hilarious.
You're drawing people into ever-increasingly more semantic arguments until you can finally say "Gotcha!" on one nebulous point of the conversation. You're not making arguments, you're shifting around trying to fit parts of people's posts to suit your point.
Saying stuff like "Wow blahblahblah" or "I really can't believe _____" isn't making a point, it's avoidance of the topic.
EDIT: It's been a hell of a roller coaster thread in this thread but I'm going to call it a night. See you all tomorrow.
Intent implies a sentience. Purpose may or may not depending on usage. Yes, reproductive organs evolved and if functioning properly, will be responsible for replication when two animals get together to fuck. Animals get together for the purpose of fucking, they have organs that evolved to cause replication.
travisbickle
Member
IpsoFacto meant God's intention.
IpsoFacto
Member
I'm sure there is, but I've read and seen situations where such programs simply don't produce the expected results (you can read up on some of the details on the DailyMail). One might be left to believe that responsibility, which is at the core of unwanted pregnancies is something that might not be easy to pass on to children, especially if they hear ir from strangers rather then their own parents.
If I may take another slight detour, because I want to hear your opinion on this as well, namely rape which is a whole beast in and of itself.
Let's say that there is a compromise and abortion gets accepted in case of health problems and to cover such issues like rape. This will likely help reduce the burden for rape victims, but nevertheless rapists will keep doing their thing. Would any of you be OK with the notion of sterilizing sex offenders?
Personally, I feel like that would be a huge incentive to keep sickos like rapists and pedophiles with their pants on.
And their "fucking" has the purpose of reproducing. Or as you would put it, has the purpose of inserting the penis into the vagina, which has the purpose of creating rhythmic movement, which has the purpose of arousal, which has the purpose of stimulation, which has the purpose of creating an orgasm, which has the purpose carrying sperm into the vagina, which has the purpose of fertilizing an egg, which has the purpose of producing offspring.
Or in other words, the purpose of reproducing.
I get into my car with the purpose of putting my foot on the gas pedal (and sometimes, even the brake pedal). OR I could just say that I get into my car for the purpose of getting from one place to another.
Using birth control is also being responsible, unfortunately these people limit access to it and demonize even condoms.
Sterilization would accomplish nothing.
tfur
Member
You have this backwards.
Congratulation you've used the broadest brush possible.
In nearly all cases of abortion they just don't want it, what's important is WHY they don't want it.
Yeah huh even before we got into modern medicine we knew that fucking meant babies were coming after.
I mean why the hell do you think religions went to great length to demonize sodomy and other 'unatural' sex?
Heck why do you think that in some culture on wedding night you had the parents making sure the married couple had sex?
Seriously you won't find someone who care so little about the issue and is so strongly opposed to the ban and I find the reasoning that sex is just for sex culturally to be downright idiotic.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Ugh I hate the tea party
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It has less to do with danger (though an abortion is less dangerous than a pregnancy) and more to do with her control over her own body.
The unborn child isn't really a person yet (there is some grey area when it is 8/9 months old) so it doesn't have a choice nor a right to live a full and happy life.
Even if there was robot-uterii as Devolution suggested, I'm guessing that the surgery of actually moving the embryo/fetus from the pregnant woman to the robot-uterus would be more dangerous/invasive than an abortion.
Who would end up raising that fetus anyway?
We already have plenty of parentless children born everyday without adding robot-uterii fetuses to the mix.
Purpose but not intent, no aspect of the animal has any intention to actually produce progeny, they simply do.
Which was a response to this post originally. There is an implication that sex is intended for procreation when in reality, sex results in procreation...sex is conducted for pleasure by all animals and results in replication. The reason why I harp on the subtle difference is that many religions believe that people's sex lives must be dictated based on their belief that sex only serves the purpose of replicating and is ordained by god who had a very set intent when creating the process. Which is bullshit.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Even born children don't get choices for what is best for them it's decided by their parents. If the decision of what is best for them is to not be born then who are we to argue?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
You guys need to think about the whole reproduction thing semantically:
E.g. if birth control is used, then sex is no longer reproduction.
There's nothing more to it.
E.g. if birth control is used, then sex is no longer reproduction.
There's nothing more to it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Several pages back, but this, I think, really gets to the core of the current problem with the Republican party: they are obsessed with what people "should" do, to the point that they ignore what people actually do.
She got pregnant? She shouldn't have had sex. She can't afford the child now? Too bad, she shouldn't have had sex. Doesn't matter that she did, doesn't matter what happens now, doesn't matter that this is a statistically significant problem, its all about what people should have done. People who don't behave like they should have no one but themselves to blame, and if enormous amounts of people don't act like they should, well, that's just a sign of America's declining moral fabric. This goes beyond abortion, its a problem with their view on everything from the economy to the social safety net.
Yeah no.
Seriously mankind has been aware for more than 6000 years that sex lead to children.
Chances are if we could talk to our ancestors before they had religions they'd still know that sex leads to babies.
Religion is only a way for people to get a stable community that can live happily ever after.
It's a moral code after all.
So it tries to lay down rules for anything including sex.
Psychotext
Member
Funny how it's basically worked out in completely the opposite way. Nothing has caused more violence and hatred than religion.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I don't think "caused" is the right word there. "been used as justification for" might be historically accurate.
Psychotext
Member
Fair point, but at that stage you're getting into intent and it gets far, far murkier. I've personally witnessed riots and bloodshed literally caused by the words of religious leaders and seen the fear and mistrust held between religions (and those without religion).
Yeah, no.
There's a time to shit on religion and this is clearly not the time.
I mean it actually really worked that way, you have absolutely no idea how freaking violent society was back then.
I mean people keep their heads now when they displease their overlords.
Heck religion or no religion, people were really ok with stoning people for adulterers if they didn't intend to do worse.
All the while claiming to be devout Christians.
Whoever drew up the Supply Side Jesus really did hit it out of the ball park.
All points of view that make perfect sense when you believe that each person has perfect control over their minds and actions.
Of course such a view of reality is not actually consistent with it, so you get a whole lot of incoherent ideas and beliefs that simply have no efficacy to them.
We have been around for more than 100, 000 years.
And that is a load of shit in the modern world. If you are referencing the ancient past, perhaps, but in today's modern era, religion is completely unnecessary.
Oppo
Member
At this point, at least in the USA, I think the atheists/secular humanists ought to basically do what they're being accused of and actually, literally go to war against religion in all it's forms.
What are they going to do - accuse you of religious persecution? already happening. Subvert the law and judiciary? already happening. Cry foul all day on the biggest news channel in the nation? etc.
I'm only half joking.
What are they going to do - accuse you of religious persecution? already happening. Subvert the law and judiciary? already happening. Cry foul all day on the biggest news channel in the nation? etc.
I'm only half joking.
I don't remember a text going so far back though so I bought myself some wiggle room
I never made any reference to now.
Religion as anything other than the diplomatic arm of the Vatican on some occasions is of little to no use.
Heck ideally religions evolve with the times so that they're not in open conflict with the society (and here in France it mostly evolved even if we didn't let it any choice in the matter).
But that's not the point here I guess.
Heck till it started hammering on people's head it was more a force of progress than an hindrance.
- Status