I said in those two cases abortion is still evil - only that less so than in the case — Agustino

I'm a little wary of classifying evil in degrees. If something is evil, then it's evil, and that's that.

But not to abort it is to punish the woman for the crimes of the rapist. — Agustino

I don't see this as punishing the woman. She was harmed in the act of rape, not in becoming pregnant.

To deny a married couple the possibility of using sex as a means of spiritual intimacy seems to me an evil. — Agustino

But I'm not denying them anything. They are free to engage in certain actions that might lead to certain consequences.

sex would serve both as a means of spiritual union — Agustino

I'm highly skeptical that the latter can be achieved by the former.

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. — Agustino

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.

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.

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?

No, my condemnation for it stems from the fact that a life is destroyed for infantile and immoral reasons.

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")

I'm a little wary of classifying evil in degrees. If something is evil, then it's evil, and that's that. — Thorongil

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.

I don't see this as punishing the woman. — Thorongil

So you don't see having to carry and raise the child of a man who raped you as an evil?

But I'm not denying them anything. They are free to engage in certain actions that might lead to certain consequences. — Thorongil

I agree.

I'm highly skeptical that the latter can be achieved by the former. — Thorongil

Why?

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? — Agustino

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.)

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. — Michael

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

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? — 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.

Then a case needs to be made for sexual promiscuity being infantile and immoral. — Michael

Sure - I did that in the past, but that's not what this thread is about.

They aren't usually flippant about evil when addressing something as serious as murder (which is how they deem abortion.) — Mongrel

Does that imply that I am?

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 — Agustino

Well, no. There's more to being in control of your own life than just being able to sleep around.

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.

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.

Sure - I did that in the past, but that's not what this thread is about.

So you don't want to defend your anti-abortion views? You're just saying that you have them?

Does that imply that I am? — Agustino

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 :).

Sex ought only to be a means toward alleviating sexual appetite. If a couple's intent is to diminish their lust through the means of sex, then so be it. But if that couple intends only to satisfy each other's sexual desire as the end in itself, then they've not intended to do what is compassionate, which is the repairing of the other's sexual weakness that they themselves cannot solve alone.

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."

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 :). — Mongrel

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.

Well, no. There's more to being in control of your own life than just being able to sleep around. — Michael

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.

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. — 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.

So you don't want to defend your anti-abortion views? You're just saying that you have them? — 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.

Sex ought only to be a means toward alleviating sexual appetite. If a couple's intent is to diminish their lust through the means of sex, then so be it. But if that couple intends only to satisfy each other's sexual desire as the end in itself, then they've not intended to do what is compassionate, which is the repairing of the other's sexual weakness that they themselves cannot solve alone. — Heister Eggcart

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.

New arguments aren't necessarily better. I'll say it again: your starting point is superficial. You come across as morally ambiguous. Start with basics. What is the foundation of your morality?

Not all people do it out of lust in other words. — Agustino

The vast majority of people have sex because of their lust, are you kidding?

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. — 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.

But the basics are precisely what is controversial. Look at Michael for example. He disagrees because he doesn't agree there is any such thing as soul/spirit/psyche. That is more basic than abortion. The root of everything - in this case God - is even more controversial.

The vast majority of people have sex because of their lust, are you kidding? — Heister Eggcart

Yes, the vast majority is not all of them.

Uh, no. Your couple's already failed in their intentions if they're fumbling after desire. — Heister Eggcart

And loving something (or someone) doesn't include desiring it (or them)? If I love God, then don't I desire God?

And sorry, love does not require me sliding my penis into a woman's vagina. — Heister Eggcart

Yes it doesn't require that.

It seems to me that your vague appeal to some kind of transcendent "oneness" is a pretty bad excuse for you to fuck somebody. — 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.

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. — Heister Eggcart

I agree - if you can only love someone by having sex with them, you're doing it wrong.

But the basics are precisely what is controversial. Look at Michael for example. He disagrees because he doesn't agree there is any such thing as soul/spirit/psyche. That is more basic than abortion. The root of everything - in this case God - is even more controversial. — Agustino

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.

And 'women shouldn't be promiscuous' isn't controversial? Move to Saudi if you feel that way, dude. — Mongrel

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.

If I love God, then don't I desire God? — Agustino

You don't want after God. You need him.

Yes it doesn't require that. — Agustino

Great, so we agree that you don't need to have sex!

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. — 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, ;)

You don't want after God. You need him. — Heister Eggcart

Okay so if I need Him, I can then either want Him, or not - that is still open to me.

Great, so we agree that you don't need to have sex! — 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.

Why is it morally necessary to satisfy our sexual instincts? — Heister Eggcart

I didn't say it is.

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 — 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.

Okay so if I need Him, I can then either want Him, or not - that is still open to me. — Agustino

Yep.

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. — Agustino

If you don't need to have sex, there is, therefore, no reason for you to have it.

I didn't say it is. — Agustino

Then explain what you mean by "natural desire."

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. — 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.

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. — Agustino

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.

Yep. — Heister Eggcart

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.

If you don't need to have sex, there is, therefore, no reason for you to have it. — 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.

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. — 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.

Puritanism comes and goes. — Mongrel

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.

The sexual revolution was one of many where we realized... oh yea, we're animals — 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.

It does require some fortitude from men to accept a world where feminine power is not veiled — 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 ;)

Men who have psychological problems about women will be afflicted. — 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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

how they can go on living in shame is beyond me, but I'll give you that it's hilarious. — Agustino

Cool. It's hilarious. Government has no role to play in it.

Government has no role to play in it. — Mongrel

Ehmm nope, I don't think that follows at all :D

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. — Agustino

Want does not follow need.

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. — 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.

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. — 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...

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. — 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,

Sex ought only to be a means toward alleviating sexual appetite. — 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.

It doesn't mean precisely that. — Michael

>:O yeaaaaaah

It could also mean being able to spend the evening at the pub or being able to go spelunking at a moment's notice. And both the celibate and the monogamous can be in control of their lives. — Michael

Sure but in this case it certainly includes fucking around as you call it.

casual sex doesn't "do violence" to one's soul. — 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.

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. — 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.

Ehmm nope, I don't think that follows at all :D — Agustino

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.