On 5 May 2004 20:42:57 -0700, (Goldhammer)
wrote:
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
(Goldhammer) wrote:
Mark Richardson <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
Therefore you encourage the abortion industry.
I don't belive that.
I certainly dont intend to encourage abortion - I intend the opposite.
I believe you are saying making it legal == encouragement is a gross
simplification.
You didn't stop at "making it legal". You added that
abortion is a "human right". That it must be subsidized
for the poor, which means the government has to fund
the abortion industry. You even advocate abortion as
a method of population control for the underprivileged.
If that is not encouraging the abortion industry, what is?
I don't know.
It seems to me to be an offensive way of describing my position.
(It is also misleading as to "intent" .)
I suppose you can label my position whatever you like.
I will choose my own words.
Not even by your own definition of "pro-choice"
are you pro-choice.
Well I don't know where that comes from, so I can't argue against it.
I have news for you, Mark. Babies are the
result of sex. If people don't want a child
they shouldn't play-act like they're trying
to procreate.
Sex is not only for reproduction.
In Human - and other animals (birds and mammals) which invest a large
amount of resources in a small number of young the cooperation of a
mated pair or a family pack greatly increases the success of raising
viable offspring.
Correct, which means that the bonding aspect
of sex is geared to raising children, while the
creative aspect of sex is geared toward making
them in the first place.
Hence sex plays a valuable role in "pair bonding" of mates.
(and mutual grooming and courtship display etc)
Sex has evolved or is "designed" to be pleasurable.
Sex IS for pleasure AND reproduction.
Sex is for maintaining a relationship.
Again, correct. Both aspects of sex must be
present to create ideal conditions for raising
children. But to what end is the sexual activity
of those who don't want a child, but want to
go through the motions?
I can think of two basic categories:
(1) "Practicing for the real thing"
Nobody has perfect knowledge.
When Jane has sex with Brad she doesn't know if its the first of a
lifetimes matings or a one night stand.
Practice relationships make a lot of sense - marrying the first
girl/boy you bonk often turns into a disaster.
You learn about the opposite sex by having relationships with them.
(2) Sex for pleasure. Sex purely for fun - for excitement for a
thrill. Sex with no intention to find a long term mate.
Certainly not bonding,
in the sense you have just described.
I must confess I am not one of these people who has "casual" sex.
The reasons are complex - but it boils down to personality type.
I am the shy and serious type.
I am a hopeless romantic.
Whenever I had sex (which wasn't spectacularly often) it was for
bonding. Looking for love.
As evident from your examples, sex is directed to a
definite purpose in the biological nature of man:
to bring about the existence of new members of the
species. What makes this possible is a complementary
arrangement of organs in the male and female, along
with instinctive drives, and mechanisms for bonding.
This complicated natural equipment, viewed scientifically,
is obviously not provided for mere entertainment.
It isn't "provided" for mere entertainment - but humans are not simple
automatons.
Mountains are not provided for mere entertainment but people climb
them for fun anyway.
Its fun because the adrenalin buzz "provided" for escaping from
danger, makes people feel good.
Sex makes us feel good - so people have sex.
they don't have sex (in the majority) because it makes babies.
We do it becuase it feels good - because we have the appatite for it -
sometimes pregnancy results.
Indeed
it is absurd to claim so. It would be a perverse denial
of reality.
Though it be a denial of reality, it has become the
popular truth: sex can be divorced from its creative
purpose and used merely for entertainment. Again I urge
you to note the absurdity of this. Imagine a scientist
examining diagrams of the female reproductive system
and concluding that its function must be for providing
entertainment. Of course it is absurd. Yet this is what
most believe.
That sex IS fun is a side effect of its biological purpose.
That we get pleasure from eating food is a side effect from its
biological purpose.
That riding roller coasters or climbing mountains is fun is a side
effect of biological systems that exist for some other purpose.
In a sense its irrelevant.
The drive to have sex and the drive to eat are very powerful
motivators.
There's an obvious method to prevent the "existence
of unwanted children". I wonder if you can figure out
what that is.
Yes.
Why wonder when I explicitly mentioned contraception myself.
Yet contraception fails.
Your answer is baffling, to say the
least, because just prior to this,
you were giving an admirable demonstration
that you understood the facts of life.
Your response reveals that someone can be
up to par with modern sex education and
still comprehend less about sex than a man
of 3000 years ago.
Yeah?
The basic fact that sex
is what causes babies - and thus pregnancy
is avoided by not having sex - eludes you.
Does it?
When cause and effect is mentioned, contraception
comes first to your mind. Pregnancy is prevented
by contraception and babies happen because some
contraceptives are defective.
Ah!
So you expect actual human beings to have sex enough times during
their lives to produce the two or three children they actually desire
and then remain celibate (pre and post marriage).
Have you actually ever visited earth?
Met actual Homo Sapiens?
They are quite fascinating creatures and nothing like what you
imagine.
If someone *is* determined that destroying a pint of
human blood is a moral evil - equivalent to homicide -
then how do you use argument or reason to defeat such a belief?
Begin by asking "why is it equivalent
to homicide?"
Oh that's very helpful!
You would have though the pro lifers would have thought of that by
now.
So what we have to do is get *you* to do is to look at
whether its a bad thing for irresponsible 15 year old's
to have and raise children.
You strengthen that irresponsibility still
further when you assure the 15 year old that
they can play "procreation", and if anything
results from it, they can just kill it. That
is the height of irresponsibility.
You have a point.
I have heard of "repeat" offenders who repeatedly get pregnant and
repeatedly have abortions.
That makes me angry.
(Although I would say that was a tiny minority - I would like to find
some statistics on that
It ranges from 20 % to 30 % and up.
That's surprising.
That would be the number of repeat abortions - for *any* reason, yes?
Your solution is not going to eliminate the irresponsible people -
they wont disappear - your solution will "punish" everyone equally.
Your solution wont eliminate "bad luck" either.
Which "solution" are you referring to?
Making abortion illegal/ extremely difficult to obtain.
Of course accidents will hapen
If two people engage in consentual sex and
the woman gets pregnant, it is not an accident,
regardless of what methods they were using
to frustrate the creative component of sex.
That's absurd.
If it is not intentional, it is accidental.
This is simply what the words mean.
even when people are responsible and using contraception.
There's an oxymoron.
No it isn't.
Its a perfectly obvious distinction.
To me anyway.
If you have two small children and are just about making ends meet -
I have some reservations concerning tales of
economic woes coming from pro-abortionists.
We live in the richest countries in the
world - indeed the richest that have ever
existed, by most standards. Our resources and
abilities far exceed anything in previous
centuries. How would today's low income families
appear to couples living in pre-industrial
revolution England? Ridiculously well-off,
I imagine. And yet people of that era had
children, raised them, and well... you
and I are here today because of them.
They also practiced abortion and birth control.
Just not particularly safe or effective.
and your husband looses his Job or becomes an invalid or ...
and you find yourself pregnant - isnt it being responsible to
your children and your husband and yourelf to seek an abortion?
Of course not. There are many couples
willing to adopt a newborn, if it
comes to that. This option exists.
You can't pretend it doesn't.
Is there a demand for 100 thousand a year in Canada?
Actions have consequences. Real ones.
Yes, Mark, sex does have real consequences.
You think forcing a medical procedure on people "for there own good"
is bad thing - but forcing someone to give birth to a child they dont
want is a good thing?
I have never advocated "forcing someone to
give birth to a child they don't want".
?
If someone is (unintentionally) pregnant and they do not abort or
miscarry or die then they will give birth to a child that they do not
want.
That is simple fact.
They both involve you taking away another persons right to
decide what happens to their own body.
A "right" is something you can demand the state to
enforce. For example, the right to free speech.
Surgically transforming yourself into a woman is
not a right - if it was you could force the state
to provide you will the means.
That's correct.
Are you personally willing to take responsibility
for the 100's of thousands of extra people you would
see born each year? No - of course not - it would
"inconvenience" you too much. You would rather people
you consider your moral inferiors be forced to raise
those children so you can be free to go about feeling
superior unencumbered.
Gee, let me try this game, Mark. Are you personally
willing to take responsibility for the 100's of
thousands of unemployed?
Am I *advocating* making more people unemployed?
The thousands of street people?
Am I *advocating* making more people homeless?
The millions of drug addicts? The hundreds waiting
for organ donations? The thousands of unhappy childless
couples? No? Is it too much of an inconvenience for you
to part with your job, your money, your kidneys, and your
children? I thought so. You'd rather force these people
to keep on living miserable lives so you can feel better
about yourself.
IS the situation in any way analogous?
Certainly. In your post, you chose a social ill
and demanded that I personally fix the problem.
You asked, with a touch of grandstanding, what
am I prepared to *personally* do about social ill
such-and-such. Aside from ad hominem, there is no
other motivation for you to do so. And so I ask
you in turn, what have you *personally* done about
the millions of unhappy childless couples?
I find it hard to believe that you are not "playing dumb" here.
You are ADVOCATING that women be forced to give birth to children they
do not want.
That is what it means to be anti abortion, to be anti choice , to be
against the women having the choice to abort.
I am pointing out that forcing women to give birth to children they
don't want (or forcing them to seek illegal and dangerous abortions)
has consequences.
Very serious consequences in either case.
I understand that you do not want to face up to the reality of those
consequences.
That's tough, because I am going to keep on mentioning them.
IF I was advocating deliberately creating more unemployed people then
you would have a point. Then you could suggest I take responsibility
for the mess I advocate creating.
But, you are advocating that unhappy
childless couples remain childless.
So what are you personally prepared to
do about it, Mark?
Nothing of course.
I am prepared to do anything reasonable.
Forcing women to give birth is not "reasonable".
Encouraging adoption agencies/pregnacy counselors to put the option to
young women is certainly something I could support.
don't want. (or forcing them to seek illegal abortion) You are not
proposing to look after the children that result - your only focus is
on the parent and forcing them to live with the results of their
mistake or "weakness" or bad luck.
That is a silly straw man.
I dont think so.
It's the reality of what "pro life" means.
What was all that stuff about "just don't have sex"?
Isn't the implication plain that those that cannot control their
lustful appetites getting their just deserts?
Isn't there an element of gloating righteousness involved?
Abortion is "cheating" - its being naughty in thine eyes and getting
away with it!
You seek to punish these women for their irresponsibility by
giving them a child to care for.
Another straw man.
Possibly.
There is certainly a element within the "pro life" movement that does
think this way.
What about the child?
If he/she is lucky his mother will care and love him /her.
If he/she is unlucky they will be neglected, abused, moved from foster
home to foster home ...
That argument applies to all children.
What does it have to do with anything?
Do you have a method for determining
in advance who makes a good mother
and who does not?
No I don't.
Another excellent reason to leave it up to the potential mother rather
than the Government/courts/goldhammer to decide
But at least the woman was made to face up to the responsibility
by physically carrying the growing baby and giving birth.
That's all that matters - right?
You seek to *use* a human child solely as a means to an end - as a
vehicle for the punishment of an immoral/irresponsible person.
More ridiculous raving. You've fallen
to pieces in this half of the post.
I really think it is a valid point - perhaps not for you but I sense
this kind of attitude in the "pro life" brigade.
I think the "abortion industry" and "homicide" "perpetual chastity"
stuff is the ridiculous raving.
Do you think people should be given the choice
to hire prostitutes? Yes?
Yep.
Should the government
subsidize prosititution so that poor people
can afford it as well as the rich? No?
Of course not.
Why not? Don't you believe in equal rights?
Isn't it wrong for the rich to have more
rights than the poor? How come the rich
get to choose, but the poor don't?
The rich can afford luxuries the poor cannot.
I don't think access to basic health care, decent education and
control of the size of your family should be considered luxuries.
Is that clear enough?
If not, too bad, I am not answering the same question over and over
again.
Do you give a damn about the poor?
Obviously, yes.
I would rather give them medical and education facilities.
And free or subsidized contraception and pregnancy advice.
I'm somewhat skeptical of your concern for the interests
of the poor. Your notions about population and economic
classes are shot with errors. Some errors are borrowed
from eugenicists. To disentangle the mess would take time.
For now, some general points for you to ponder...
- There is no evidence that providing the poor with
the means to kill their offspring does anyone any
good. Hysterical doomsday arguments are not evidence.
Not true.
Did you read the stories in the link I posted?
They were true stories of real people.
- Poverty is an economic condition, not a genetically
transmitted trait. Suggesting that it is genetically
transmitted is the error of eugenicists who advocate
abortion/sterilization for the impoverished classes.
Stawman.
You cannot relieve poverty by sterilizing the poor,
or by aborting their offspring, because poverty is not
a genetic trait.
The truth is, the rich can become poor,
and the poor can become rich. A poor mother can raise
a son who becomes rich, and a rich mother can raise
a son who ends up living in poverty.
I am perfectly aware of all that.
Its possible for one legged men to live happy productive lives -
that's not a good reason to go around chopping peoples legs off.
It's a statistical thing.
Look at a thousand people born to poor single mother.
Look at a thousand people born to well off married mothers.
Compare health, income and crime statistics between the two groups
when they are 20.
Why not go out of your way to give people the best possible start to
life?
Saying "Johny did all right and he grew up dirt poor!" just doesn't
cut it.
It's the same as "My dad smoked twenty a day since he was sixteen and
he lived to be eighty five!"
- Suggesting that, by killing their offspring, the
poor will generate less misery in the world, is an
obscenely cynical view of the poor. Swift proposed
this, but he was writing satire.
Strawman.
- Your contempt for lower economic classes is sharply
illustrated every time you suggest that the poor, by
raising children, add to crime, drug addiction, and
misery.
Strawman.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 043 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
