"There was a young guy who lived in a shoe.
He fathered so many children he didn't know what to do.
Evidently."

It isn't as if our casual sexers have no options to prevent a child from being conceived. Among those options: birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, vasectomies, tubal ligation, contraceptive foams, IUDs, not to overlook just having excellent, high quality sex with other guys--that has yet to result in a pregnancy.

After all, what kind of good mother would have casual sex? — Ronin3000

A perfectly normal one. Your mother, quite possibly.

Like I said in the first sentence, there is no 100% proven effective method of contraception other than abstinence. Therefore, all sex risks pregnancy.

Would a good mother risk getting impregnated by a guy she doesn't know well just for pleasure? Even if there is a 0.01% of pregnancy, would a good mother risk an unwanted pregnancy just for pleasure? I argue no. That's why I assume that no good mother has casual sex.

I know my mother had casual sex. I never said she was a good mother. I grew up to be a violent criminal.

The only 100% method of contraception is abstinence. — Ronin3000

Well, obviously, abstinence is not 100% effective. People make mistakes. They make bad decisions. Whether or not you like it or whether it's moral, people, including unmarried people, will have sex. Artificial methods of birth control are much more effective than the fantasy that people will not. As Bitter Crank points out, modern methods are very effective. I don't expect perfection in any other aspect of my life, why would I expect it with sex.

Under current gynocentric laws in America, women have complete authority on what to do with the baby growing inside them. — Ronin3000

I think I'd rather give that authority to the women involved than any other party I can think of. I'm against abortion, but I think the woman should be the one that makes the final decision.

Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. — Ronin3000

Except it's not. You can assume it if you want, but if I disagree with you, it's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.

If you have casual sex as a man, you are risking pregnancy. If pregnancy happens, there is a chance that the woman will abort (legally murder) your baby or give birth to it and abuse it/raise it poorly. — Ronin3000

I assume that by "casual sex" you mean any sex outside marriage. Is that correct. There is lots of non-marital sex which is not casual. I've never had what I would call casual sex. All my sexual relationships have been with women I had monogamous, long-term relationships with. Abortion is not "legally murder." It's not murder at all. Murder is a crime. Abortion is not.

After all, what kind of good mother would have casual sex? — Ronin3000

Most of the adult women I know have had sex outside of marriage before they were married. All that I know personally who had children have been good mothers who raised their children well.

You clearly have problems with women having power in their sexual relationships. Is that true? Do you think men should be in charge? Sorry, but you live in the wrong world, or at least the wrong country. Perhaps Saudi Arabia. Maybe ISIS.

Would a good mother risk getting impregnated by a guy she doesn't know well just for pleasure? Even if there is a 0.01% of pregnancy, would a good mother risk an unwanted pregnancy just for pleasure? I argue no. That's why I assume that no good mother has casual sex. — Ronin3000

You don't argue no woman who has sex outside of marriage would make a bad mother, you assume it. Perhaps if you provided some evidence, I would take your position more seriously. As I said, in my experience it's not true.

T Clark, when I say "let's assume X" I am trying to shift the discussion away from secondary debates like the morality of abortion so that I can reach a meaningful conclusion for people who do believe abortion is murder (such as myself). If you are going to bog me down in whether or not abortion is murder, then I think you are not philosophically minded, and this thread is not for you.

Like I said in the first sentence, there is no 100% proven effective method of contraception other than abstinence. Therefore, all sex risks pregnancy. — Ronin3000

You didn't respond to Bitter Crank's point. As he said, the only truly effective method of birth control is homosexual sex. Are you in favor of that?

T Clark, when I say "let's assume X" I am trying to shift the discussion away from secondary debates like the morality of abortion so that I can reach a meaningful conclusion. If you are going to bog me down in whether or not abortion is murder, then I think you are not philosophically minded, and this thread is not for you. — Ronin3000

You'll find very few, if any, people on this forum who will buy your assumption, but you're right. I'm not willing to let your faulty assumptions go without comment, but I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on this thread.

You still haven't responded to Bitter Crank's point about homosexuality. You didn't include an assumption that same-sex sex was immoral.

Actually, I was thinking. You will find people on the forum who will agree with your assumption. With them, you will be preaching to the choir.

Moral sex would be sex for the purpose of procreation in which both parents are good people with shared values. Gay sex would also be moral. Casual sex in which the probability of pregnancy was 0% could also be moral. However, I believe the vast majority of casual sex has a probability of pregnancy higher than 0.

Moral sex would be sex for the purpose of procreation in which both parents are good people with shared values. Gay sex would also be moral. Casual sex in which the probability of pregnancy was 0% could also be moral. — Ronin3000

I don't buy it, but we'll see if anyone else responds.

I think having kids and driving cars can be moral while still risking those things. Does that mean having casual sex while using some kind of contraception is moral? I like using the pull-out method because condoms reduce sensitivity. Is my method moral even though it increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy in exchange for increased pleasure?

Also, what did you mean by "Hey, Schop"? Did Schopenhauer argue that having children is immoral because they can't consent to being born?

I'm not trying to use special pleading. I'll tentatively accept that casual sex is moral since driving cars is moral. Now will you answer my questions regarding the pull-out method vs. condoms?

I argue that risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for sexual pleasure is immoral. — Ronin3000

Is my method moral even though it increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy in exchange for increased pleasure? — Ronin3000

If you are going to bog me down in whether or not abortion is murder, then I think you are not philosophically minded, and this thread is not for you. — Ronin3000

You seem to be bogged down in your own self judgement. Abortion being murder seems central to your appraisal. This is settled law to you, what can we add?

just for pleasure — Ronin3000

Your making the assumption that "casual sex" produces meaningless pleasure. You will hear it here first: There is no such thing as meaningless sex. People engage in sex -- married sex, unmarried sex, straight sex, gay sex, casual sex, serious sex -- because they seek pleasurable and meaningful experiences with other people, and casual sex can and does provide meaningful experiences, just like all the other kinds of sex.

Yes pregnancy might happen. Sometimes a pregnancy is a disaster, but it's a problem that isn't hard to master. Plan B and early abortion solves the problem. Yes, I hear you -- you object to abortion. You think laws on abortion are gynocentric. Since pregnancy is a gynocentric situation, that makes sense. If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament.

I think the safest thing for you to do is avoid sex on any and all occasions except in a marriage which you are certain will last long enough to properly raise the child you father. Otherwise... no sex for you.

The risk of you killing someone while driving is always more than 0%, killing someone is bad, therefore driving is immoral.

The risk of your offspring being dissatisfied with life is always more than 0%, being dissatisfied with life is bad, therefore procreation is immoral. (Hey, Schop!) — Πετροκότσυφας

On the other hand, the person you ran over probably regretted being born, anyway, so really -- justified homicide.

I said I tentatively accepted that your analogy proved my point wrong. Now can you answer my questions? How am I special pleading still?

if you don't want to get pregnant, and since being deliberately dumb means you don't take care of yourself and not caring for yourself means that you can't achieve the virtue you're capable of, then it is immoral to choose a minor intensification of pleasure instead of reliable methods of contraception. Even more so, if you're not willing to proceed with the pregnancy. — Πετροκότσυφας

The way driving is not immoral, but drunk driving is. Should we mandate third party insurance for casual sex?

I believe that self-harm and self-destructive behavior is moral since you own yourself, and you can do what you want with your possessions. Given this assumption, would you still say that using the pull-out method instead of condoms is immoral?

I believe you can do what you want with your possessions as long as you don't aggress upon others.

Why?

I was introduced to the concept of self-ownership by Stefan Molyneux. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership . I guess the reason people say they own themselves rather than they are themselves is because the idea of self-ownership is used to support libertarianism/anarchy.

I believe that we do not own our children. I don't want to get too far away from my original question of the morality of the pull-out method vs. condoms.

Like I said in the first sentence, there is no 100% proven effective method of contraception other than abstinence. Therefore, all sex risks pregnancy. — Ronin3000

Mmm does that include married sex? :lol:

The only 100% method of contraception is abstinence. Therefore, any casual sex risks the possibility of unplanned pregnancy. Under current gynocentric laws in America, women have complete authority on what to do with the baby growing inside them. They can even legally kill the baby. Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder — Ronin3000

You've not defined "casual" sex, but I'm assuming you define it as sex for some purpose other the procreation, which would include the vast sort of sex that occurs within a marriage. I cannot count the number of times I had sex when married, but I can count the number of kids I have (two), which means that mostly I wasn't having sex to have kids. Since abortion can just as legally occur within a marriage as without, I'm assuming that sex should occur just a few times in a married person's life, else the possibility of abortion/murder.

Of course we could say that casual sex is okey dokey as long as the couple is committed to not aborting the whoopsie daisy, but that would cure the problem for both married and unmarried couples, and that would eliminate the non-problem you've attempted to create.

There are also a class of people who can't get pregnant, either as the result of surgery, genetics, or age. By their mid 40s, it's next to impossible for a woman to get pregnant without a donor egg being artificially inseminated and implanted in her uterus and it's entirely impossible for a post-menopausal woman to get pregnant, so I'm assuming that lucky class of women get to fuck like bunny rabbits. Maybe it's their reward for getting old, giving all those young nubile sexually frustrated women something to look forward to as they age.

And then there's of course homosexual sex, which it appears you are an overwhelming fan of. I am quite certain that cannot result in a bouncing bundle of joy, so we therefore need not worry about the resultant child being slaughtered. I think we'd both agree, though, that our homosexual friends shouldn't be the only ones who get to have all the fun, so we heteros should simply adopt their oral and anal solution to this problem. That is, keep away from the Va J J (at least with the Willie) and we should all be alright. Who knows, it might be plenty enjoyable and fulfilling, but I expect less so for the ladies.

The only 100% method of contraception is abstinence. Therefore, any casual sex risks the possibility of unplanned pregnancy. Under current gynocentric laws in America, women have complete authority on what to do with the baby growing inside them. They can even legally kill the baby. Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. — Ronin3000

While it's true that any casual sex risks unplanned pregnancy, it doesn't follow that I shouldn't have casual sex because there is a risk involved. There are many things in life that risk life, and we do them on a daily basis. Under certain circumstances you could argue that casual sex is immoral, but not all casual sex is immoral, one would have to show at the very least that there is harm done to the people involved.

It's also not true that women in America have complete authority on what to do with unplanned pregnancy. Have you actually read Roe v Wade? I haven't read it in quite some time, but if I remember correctly, if a women is in her last trimester she has to consult a doctor. There are also other stipulations.

I sure wouldn't stipulate that all abortion is equivalent to murder, that's just not true. I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. The most you can say is it's a potential person, and as such it has value. If you believe all abortion is murder, then I can see why you would go to great lengths to do all you can to stop it. Consider a case where the mother's life is in danger if she gives birth, how can it be murder to take the life of the fetus to protect her own life? I do believe that you shouldn't abort without good reason, and I do believe that the decision to abort should be done, in many cases with a doctors advice, if possible. You could argue that some, most, or many abortions are immoral, but that has to be decided on a case by case basis. The decision should be between the mother, family, and a doctor, and in some cases the mother can make the decision on her own. However, your argument isn't a good one to say the least.

The attacks should be against the argument not against the person, so those of you attacking the person are in the wrong. All that should matter is the argument, is it a good one or not. I happen to think it stinks.

Thanks for the cool article. Nice to be reintroduced to Kierkegaard in this manner.

I sure wouldn't stipulate that all abortion is equivalent to murder, that's just not true. I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. — Sam26

legal and moral are at best distance cousins

I sure wouldn't stipulate that all abortion is equivalent to murder, that's just not true. I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. The most you can say is it's a potential person, and as such it has value. — Sam26

I wouldn't stipulate abortion is murder either. All the other points there are far from settled and there are good arguments for and against - and the best arguments IMO on both sides of the issue have abandoned any tie to person hood at all.

Consider a case where the mother's life is in danger if she gives birth, how can it be murder to take the life of the fetus to protect her own life? I — Sam26

the fetus has rights, this is a case of competing rights -

You could argue that some, most, or many abortions are immoral, but that has to be decided on a case by case basis. — Sam26

I don't see any reason you can't make an argument either for or against abortion as moral or immoral, understanding of course that all such general judgments can be mitigated by particular circumstances.

the fetus has rights, this is a case of competing rights - — Rank Amateur

sorry - this was meant to read " if the fetus has rights - that was big IF i left off

If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament. — Bitter Crank

There's a technical term for men who can get pregnant - he's called a "woman."

legal and moral are at best distance cousins — Rank Amateur

man I am messing this up - that was meant for the comment about it being settled law -

legal and moral are at best distance cousins — Rank Amateur

You won't get an argument from me on that.

I wouldn't stipulate abortion is murder either. All the other points there are far from settled and there are good arguments for and against - and the best arguments IMO on both sides of the issue have abandoned any tie to person hood at all. — Rank Amateur

Except that one could make an argument that the closer one gets to viability, the closer one gets to having a good argument that it's a person. The problem here of course is that the line gets blurry at points, and thus isn't as clear as we would like. For me it's clear that a zygote isn't a person. Thus, not being a person, it's difficult to see how abortion could be murder, since murder always involves persons.

the fetus has rights, this is a case of competing rights - — Rank Amateur

I agree, cases for and against abortion come down to competing rights, the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus. Of course does a zygote have rights? Usually when we talk of rights, we're talking about persons. If we're talking about moral or immoral, then that's a separate question.

I don't see any reason you can't make an argument either for or against abortion as moral or immoral, understanding of course that all such general judgments can be mitigated by particular circumstances. — Rank Amateur

Again, I agree.