I said in those two cases abortion is still evil - only that less so than in the case — Agustino
But not to abort it is to punish the woman for the crimes of the rapist. — Agustino
To deny a married couple the possibility of using sex as a means of spiritual intimacy seems to me an evil. — Agustino
sex would serve both as a means of spiritual union — Agustino
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
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.
No, my condemnation for it stems from the fact that a life is destroyed for infantile and immoral reasons.
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'm a little wary of classifying evil in degrees. If something is evil, then it's evil, and that's that. — Thorongil
So you don't see having to carry and raise the child of a man who raped you as an evil?I don't see this as punishing the woman. — Thorongil
I agree.But I'm not denying them anything. They are free to engage in certain actions that might lead to certain consequences. — Thorongil
Why?I'm highly skeptical that the latter can be achieved by the former. — Thorongil
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, 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 >:OWell 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
>: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.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
Sure - I did that in the past, but that's not what this thread is about.Then a case needs to be made for sexual promiscuity being infantile and immoral. — 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 — Agustino
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.
Sure - I did that in the past, but that's not what this thread is about.
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.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
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.Well, no. There's more to being in control of your own life than just being able to sleep around. — 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.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
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.So you don't want to defend your anti-abortion views? You're just saying that you have them? — Michael
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.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
Not all people do it out of lust in other words. — Agustino
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
Yes, the vast majority is not all of them.The vast majority of people have sex because of their lust, are you kidding? — Heister Eggcart
And loving something (or someone) doesn't include desiring it (or them)? If I love God, then don't I desire God?Uh, no. Your couple's already failed in their intentions if they're fumbling after desire. — Heister Eggcart
Yes it doesn't require that.And sorry, love does not require me sliding my penis into a woman's vagina. — 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.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
I agree - if you can only love someone by having sex with them, you're doing it wrong.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
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
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.And 'women shouldn't be promiscuous' isn't controversial? Move to Saudi if you feel that way, dude. — Mongrel
If I love God, then don't I desire God? — Agustino
Yes it doesn't require that. — Agustino
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
Okay so if I need Him, I can then either want Him, or not - that is still open to me.You don't want after God. You need him. — 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.Great, so we agree that you don't need to have sex! — Heister Eggcart
I didn't say it is.Why is it morally necessary to satisfy our sexual instincts? — 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.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
Okay so if I need Him, I can then either want Him, or not - that is still open to me. — Agustino
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
I didn't say it is. — Agustino
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
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
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.Yep. — 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.If you don't need to have sex, there is, therefore, no reason for you to have 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.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
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.Puritanism comes and goes. — 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.The sexual revolution was one of many where we realized... oh yea, we're animals — 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"It does require some fortitude from men to accept a world where feminine power is not veiled — 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.Men who have psychological problems about women will be afflicted. — Mongrel
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
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 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.
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
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
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
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
Sex ought only to be a means toward alleviating sexual appetite. — Heister Eggcart
>:O yeaaaaaahIt doesn't mean precisely that. — Michael
Sure but in this case it certainly includes fucking around as you call it.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
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.casual sex doesn't "do violence" to one's soul. — 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.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
Ehmm nope, I don't think that follows at all :D — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.