The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude

Post Reply New Topic

I do not understand what it is you are attempting to say here?

It has been claimed that reproduction is the primary purpose of sex. In humans, that is not statistically the case.

I would disagree. The fact that sex it is the primary means of the propagation of the species is pretty much indisputable. I am slightly wary of an attempt to hide this fact within statistical minutiae.

Oh, I'm sorry! I presumed people smart enough to get on the interwebz were at least pseudo-literate, and hence would know the word "modern" rather than being forced to read over it.

Reproduction being the primary purpose of sex is not "proven" by the fact that sex is required to reproduce

Really, this is your logic. No, that does not prove it. What proves it, is that the function would not exist for any other purpose if it was not there to facilitate reproduction. You can hang a sword on a wall as a collectors item, most people could even use swords in this way, that does not change the fact that a sword exists to cut holes in things. So when a sword cuts something up, you cannot say that it has failed to be a collectors item, no, it has just succeed in being a sword. The idea that sex and pregnancy can be separated out as if the latter is an unintended consequence of the former is just ridiculous.

It's actually Biology 101, sweetie. You made an assertion about EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, that being that reproduction is the sole imperative behind the motivation to have sex. That assertion is flat-out wrong.

Abortion doesn't "absolve anyone of 'consequences'" (interesting word choice) of having sex- it is a consequence. Cause-effect.
Although it is somewhat-comical that you a. conflate factual statements with ideological ones (IE, feminism) and b. think feminism is a perjorative.



And most of what you are doing is moving the goal post:

"Sex is supposed to result in pregnancy."
"Then why do humans screw when there's no chance of it?"
"Doesn't mean the heathens get off scot-free!"
"Um...okay, so why does it serve a variety of other purposes?"
"Ah....well. Er....those are secondary!"



Nice try at implicating pregnancy vs. forced pregnancy and childbirth vs. forced childbirth is a question of selfishness- ad hominem attacks on the character of women who would elect to have an abortion is common among those who are enraged at the concept of women having sex without forced reproduction.

Since you didn't bother to either a. refute what I said about how reproductive freedom results in healthier and more economically-advantaged women and children, or b. assert who is in fact harmed by abortion, I will assume that you don't actually think the question IS one of what's "right", as you implied.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but women's reproductive control HAS been controlled by men for thousands of years. I guess both history and biology have a well-known feminist bias, eh?

Although I have to give you props for slipping in the implication that feminism is somehow an indictment of the male sex,
as opposed to societal institutions and cultural themes which advantage men over women.

You do realize that the social sciences, being sciences, isolate variables? Or is it just that you don't particularly-care about being methodologically-correct?


ROFL. Way to refute my point. You view pregnancy and childbirth through an extremely-romanticized lens, which ironically leads you to advocate ideas which result in the deaths, hunger, sickness, suffering, and poverty of millions of children. As opposed to a woman taking a pill and bleeding into a panty-liner.

Your own bottle-coke thick rose colored-glasses aside, as pregnancy is a result of sex, and abortion occurs solely in cases of pregnancy, abortion is most certainly a possible consequence of sex.

I sowwy.

Again.

Sex being required for reproduction doesn't translate to reproduction being the primary reason.

If hanging swords on walls had a vast array of social, physiological, and other benefits observable across many species of animal,
to the point where the vast majority of sword purchases were for the sole intent of hanging them on the wall,
it would likewise be rational to conclude that the drive to engage in sword-making is now-present for many beneficial reasons other than the original one which caused it to emerge...
although a sword is not the only way to cut things.

And pregnancy IS an "unintended consequence" of sex- there are no "intents" involved in evolution, which is a mechanistic PROCESS.

Not that the evolutionary role of sex is remotely-relevant to the actualities being advocated ethically in either favoring abortion rights or opposing them as far as human suffering.

What I said was



You are projecting if you think that I am saying that reproduction is the sold imperative behind having sex. I said that there is always a chance it will lead to pregnancy and that sex is supposed to make children. The latter may be a value judgement but the former is not. I made no assertion from evolutionary biology at all.



It absolutely is a question of selfishness. If sex is consensual then creating a child is always a risk the only thing I advocated the enforcement of is that if you engage in it and you know its a risk, then be prepared to live with the consequences. If you think it is a mistake, society still has the right to ask you to pay for it.




Post-hoc ergo propter hoc can create a legitimate inference. Your inference that reproductive freedom creates wealth, is wrong. Soviet women had reproductive freedom in spades (the abortion rate was 6 times higher in the 80s than in the average western country) and all the sex ed they could want, in the end all it added up to was a Russia with a massive declining birth rate to the point of potential annihilation. It was only when abortion rates were cut that the population (and the economy) recovered, to the point where now, Russia's population is starting show signs of turning around.

Forgive me. I figured such was your intent when you said that sex is "supposed to" lead to pregnancy.

Again, I read "sex is supposed to make children" as "sex is supposed to make children". Apologies.

Then in what context, exactly, do you make the assertion that "sex is supposed to lead to pregnancy", if not one involving reproduction and biological imperatives as the result of evolution?

Right. Wanting an education and career and to provide for any pre-existing children is "selfish" as compared to being an incubator. How dare women? Greedy whores, the lot of them. (Shaming of women topic: "Selfish" for opting out of pregnancy.)

It is only you who keeps chanting that pregnancy and childbirth are the only potential "consequences" of sex and pregnancy IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT ABORTION. Your shaming language and insulting of women for choosing to take a pill and have a heavy period as opposed to sustaining an unplanned pregnancy and childbirth is insane and barbaric. (Shaming of women topic: "Be prepared to live with the consequences.")

"Society" has no right to dictate forced pregnancy and childbirth. O_O (Shaming of women topic: Punishment, societal ownership of their person.)

The only inference was that forced pregnancy and childbirth threatens if not destroys women's and their offspring's financial stability and access to education.

I'm very disturbed you think citing a historical instance of forced reproduction enacted to save a nation-state is an ethical argument.
(Shaming of women: Pregnancy and childbirth is their job, and the state should require them to do it.)

(That's aside from your, once again, failing to isolate variables by equivocating any two or more states in culture, politics, and economics, for no more substantive reason than the availability of abortion.)

You are once again attempting to dress up your hatred for the notion of women being able to engage in consensual sex free of forced reproduction with references to "consequences", "responsibility", and the outright insulting of them for the "crime" of OPTING OUT OF A PREGNANCY.


Have you any legitimate ethical basis on which to oppose abortion that involves ANY recognition of women's human rights,
or of the ACTUAL consequences for women and children when women are not the agents of their reproduction?


That is...

do you give two s**ts about all the suffering you're advocating, or is waggling your finger at sexually-active women your sole ethical reasoning?

It is a value statement. The statement that sex can lead to pregnancy, which proceeded was not a value statement, it was a statement of fact.



I am not sure of your logic here. If a women does not want to be an 'incubator', then don't have sex. It takes a decision to have consensual sex. Assuming it is a known risk to the participants, the idea that someone can forgo responsibility for the outcome is just silly.



What awful language. The sentiment on display here is certainly not my own. Men are required in my world-view to respect women... it is a non-negotiable requirement of being a member of the male gender. I make the equal expectation of a man to meet his commitment to the creation of a child as much as a women. The only gender differential being suggested here, is by you... interesting for a feminist, but not surprising. Btw, I find the use of that word to describe a woman, totally abhorrent. Just because I do not subscribe to your ideology does not mean I do not respect woman.



I never claimed that pregnancy was the only potential consequence of sex. Also, the last time I checked this was primarily a discussion of alimony. As to my 'shaming language', I apply it equally across genders, which is more than I can say for your posting.

My entire argument has been that it is wrong to separate out responsibility for pregnancy from the act of sex. It is always a risk, assuming it is a known risk, the idea that someone can forgo responsibility for the outcome is just silly. My claim stands for both men and women.



There is nothing forced if the sex is consensual and people know they can get pregnant. They chose to have sex, there is nothing forced about the pregnancy. I reject your line of reasoning. As to the libertarian sentiment at work in your argument, society (and my tax dollars) are required for your absolute unimpinged right to abortion on demand, what kind of libertarian freedom is dependent on a tenuous link to medical technology?



Sorry, but you cannot separate sex entirely from the possibility of pregnancy. As to my insulting women, the same stands for men also.



What nonsense. I did not claim this. It would be interesting for you to go back and replace 'shaming of women' with 'shaming of poster', your statements might be more truthful if you did. As to pregnancy and childbirth being 'their' job. I would not agree with that statement. A woman can chose not to get pregnant. She can also chose to have sex. She cannot chose to have sex and not risk getting pregnant. I support a womans right to choose either or both of those options. What I reject is the desire to have sex and take no responsibility for the pregnancy... that is just seriously irresponsible thinking. To then attempt to elevate this to the status or a right, is ridiculous. If a man and a woman choose to have sex, then they BOTH have to accept responsibility for the potential to have a child.

Last edited by 91 on 25 May 2011, 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly which American ideals?

Yes, and there is the rub here. The idea (deception, illusion, delusion. personal goal/s) of having "free sex" was highly promulgated back in the 1960s, but people have yet to ever find any way to actually have it "free" of any consequence (including even just plain ol' "unfair" STDs).

This has been an interesting exchange, and it is somewhat personal to me and the situation with my daughter.

I'm all about sex-for-pleasure. However, pregnancy IS a risk no matter what.

In Mississippi, access to proper birth control is not quite as easy as it seems to be elsewhere, at least not for people like myself and my wife. When times got tough and we lost our insurance, we were no longer able to afford OB visits and could not pay off an outstanding bill after the birth of our son. So for a year we decided to "wing it" for a year or two by paying close attention to timing and otherwise regular condom use, and that remains our sole method of contraception even now.

Of course, after our son was born, we were in a situation, both in terms of having a new member of our household and economically, in which we'd never been before. We were "young and stupid," so to speak.

So we ran out of condoms one summer night and just figured, hey, people have unprotected sex all the time, so just ONE TIME should be ok, right? Our daughter was born 7 months later.

So much for statistics...