Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

[Eightcrackers]

So what? That does not make it incidental to sex. Pleasure is what is incidental.

The more incidental thing would be the one that's less likely to happen.
In this case, pregnancy.

Seriously? This is not becasue sex is not for reproduction, but only becasue of technology.

"B requires A, therefore, A is for B"

is faulty reasoning. As demonstrated by the water/swimming example.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Sir, I get that you do not like to think of infanticide in the form of abortion as murder.

It's not that I don't like it.
It's that I see murder as a purely legal term.

I see no such thing as "morally murder".

I realize you do not like to think of it in moral terms.

I do think of abortion in moral terms.
Or, rather, I think of its prohibition in moral terms.

Which is WHY the LAW needs to be changed.

In your opinion.
But until the law is changed, your calling it murder has about as much force as your calling it tax evasion.

Then why should I care how YOU define it?

You shouldn't.
You should care how the law defines it, because that's where I get the definition I use.

You want abortion to be illegal? It's the legal definition you have to contend with; the one you made up won't get you anywhere when it comes to changing the law.

Because we are dealing with a human being with a right to life--it IS one of them.

A human being has a right to life, not a right to life inside another person.
Where abortion is legal, that is.

A right that is not recognized is as useful as not having the right at all.
Which is to say, not.

There are times when we might be excused from the consequences of our actions. Pregnancy is not one of those times. You don't get to just murder a human being because that human being happens to be an inconvenience.

Correct.
You get to abort a pregnancy, which may or may not be human, which is not legally considered murder.

Hence why the law needs to be changed.

In your opinion.

If the woman did not want to get pregnancy or play host to a pregnancy she does not want, then she should not do the deed that leads to pregnancy.

Because she wanted only the pleasure.

If I climb a rock wall for enjoyment, but fall off and break my leg, asking me why I went climbing if I didn't want to break my leg, would be idiotic.

Why is this fact so hard for you to grasp?

I grasp it perfectly - if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had unprotected sex (assuming it was consensual).

But she is pregnant, and she hasn't got a time machine - telling her "you should have thought of that before" does not deal with the immediate problem.

The right to life cannot be based on the arbitrary whims of another.

And yet, when it comes to the unborn, it is based on the whims of the pregnant woman.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You know, at this point--I don't see how we can continue. You refuse to accept the obvious. When someone denies what is obvious, where can the conversation go from there?

Except that it's not obvious - it's your claim, which you cannot demonstrate.

"Demonstrate that sex is for reproduction." That is like saying "Demonstrate that the sky is blue." It is self evident.

Firstly you can't even cite the argument correctly. Your claim was that the 'purpose' of sex is reproduction. Address that. Then demonstrate it. You haven't and can't.

And that the sky is blue can easily be verified and demonstrated. Not so with your claim.

But this has always been the problem with those on the left: they are too smart for their own good.

And that has always been the problem with those on the right they are too dumb for their own good.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

One can swim in beer, or coke, or mud, or coffee, or Dr. Pepper, or take your pick.

Procreation is NOT incidental to sex. If one wants to pro-create--assuming everything is functioning correctly in the body, one must have sex. That is a FACT.

Nope. It's not a fact. My ten-year old exists as evidence of that fact. They were conceived with no sex whatsoever.

 

[BMS]

Nope. It's not a fact. My ten-year old exists as evidence of that fact. They were conceived with no sex whatsoever.

Has to be the male sperm and female ovum. Thats the result of the two sexes.

 

[BMS]

Except that it's not obvious - it's your claim, which you cannot demonstrate.


Firstly you can't even cite the argument correctly. Your claim was that the 'purpose' of sex is reproduction. Address that. Then demonstrate it. You haven't and can't.

And that the sky is blue can easily be verified and demonstrated. Not so with your claim.


And that has always been the problem with those on the right they are too dumb for their own good.

Well if the sky isnt blue, how can you prove it. Its either evident or you can show it isnt. Since pleasure cant prevent conception and the human species reproduces that way, its is the purpose. That is the problem, YOUR ideas

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Has to be the male sperm and female ovum. Thats the result of the two sexes.

That is not the issue. The issue is the false claim that if one wants to procreate, one must have sex.

Well if the sky isnt blue, how can you prove it. Its either evident or you can show it isnt.

The sky is blue. What are you talking about?

Since pleasure cant prevent conception and the human species reproduces that way, its is the purpose. That is the problem, YOUR ideas

That does not remotely make sense. Overwhelmingly, the primary purpose of sex is pleasure.

 

[BMS]

That is not the issue. The issue is the false claim that if one wants to procreate, one must have sex.

No, the issue is the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction, which it is.

The sky is blue. What are you talking about?

Exactly. It is blue even if someone denies it.

That does not remotely make sense.

then you are saying pleasure can prevent conception? You are saying the human species doesnt reproduce that way? Because that is what I said and you have just said it doesnt make sense.

Overwhelmingly, the primary purpose of sex is pleasure.

Obviously not since the human species reproduces that way and one cant control conception with pleasure.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

No, the issue is the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction, which it is.

No, the issue in yet another conversation you butted into without even knowing what was being discussed, was the false claim that if one wants to procreate, one must have sex. If you're going to butt into other people's conversations, at least try to work out what's being discussed.

Exactly. It is blue even if someone denies it.

That's nice.

then you are saying pleasure can prevent conception?

I nowhere said, implied or suggested such.

You are saying the human species doesnt reproduce that way?

I nowhere said, implied or suggested such.

Because that is what I said and you have just said it doesnt make sense.

No, what you said was "Since pleasure cant prevent conception and the human species reproduces that way, its is the purpose." Which does nto remotely make sense.

Obviously not since the human species reproduces that way and one cant control conception with pleasure.

Obviously since the vast majority of sex is had with the intent of obtaining pleasure, not conceiving.

And I've no idea what you think the fact that one can't control conception with pleasure has to do with anything.

 

[BMS]

No, the issue in yet another conversation you butted into without even knowing what was being discussed, was the false claim that if one wants to procreate, one must have sex. If you're going to butt into other people's conversations, at least try to work out what's being discussed.


That's nice.


I nowhere said, implied or suggested such.


I nowhere said, implied or suggested such.


No, what you said was "Since pleasure cant prevent conception and the human species reproduces that way, its is the purpose." Which does nto remotely make sense.


Obviously since the vast majority of sex is had with the intent of obtaining pleasure, not conceiving.

And I've no idea what you think the fact that one can't control conception with pleasure has to do with anything.

Another reason is that reproduction may occur regardless of whether there was any pleasure.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Another reason is that reproduction may occur regardless of whether there was any pleasure.

That's not a reason at all. Far more often, pleasure may occur regardless of whether there was any reproduction.

 

[Eightcrackers]

That's not a reason at all. Far more often, pleasure may occur regardless of whether there was any reproduction.

"B is the result of A, therefore, B is the purpose of A."

Pleasure is more common a result than is conception.
Next?

"B cannot be accomplished without A, therefore, B is the purpose of A."

The pleasure of sex cannot be obtained without sex.
Next?

 

[BMS]

That's not a reason at all. Far more often,

Well if that wasn't a reason then its not about pleasure at all.

pleasure may occur regardless of whether there was any reproduction.

And reproduction may occur regardless of whether there was any pleasure. However, the purpose of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman, which is intended to be pleasurable, is reproduction. That is the way the human species reproduces. the human species doesnt continue through pleasure but through reproduction. That is why to prevent conception contraceptives are used.

 

[BMS]

Obviously since the vast majority of sex is had with the intent of obtaining pleasure, not conceiving.

Which is why we have so many abortions, because people are slaves to pleasure.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Well if that wasn't a reason then its not about pleasure at all.

Once again, this statement literally doesn't make sense.

AAnd reproduction may occur regardless of whether there was any pleasure. However, the purpose of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman, which is intended to be pleasurable, is reproduction.

Yes, so you keep claiming without being able to demonstrate it.

That is the way the human species reproduces. the human species doesnt continue through pleasure but through reproduction. That is why to prevent conception contraceptives are used.

Which does not support your claim.

Which is why we have so many abortions, because people are slaves to pleasure.

Which is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Temujin]

This has to do with abortion how?

It has nothing to do with abortion. The sole purpose of the post is in the first sentence. He is not known as Walter Mitty for nothing.

 

[BMS]

Once again, this statement literally doesn't make sense.

Yes, so you keep claiming without being able to demonstrate it.

Which does not support your claim.

Which is not relevant to the discussion.

Once again your first response is another example of you being able to debate up until the point of proof which you mysteriously then cant understand.

As to your second point, what do you mean by demonstrate? Do you agree the human species reproduces through sexual intercourse, if so that is the evidence for proposing the purpose of sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse also happens to be pleasurable.

Do you really think your evolution is based on sexual pleasure? Survival of the sexiest.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Once again your first response is another example of you being able to debate up until the point of proof which you mysteriously then cant understand.

No, my first response is to point out a nonsensical statement when you make one.

As to your second point, what do you mean by demonstrate?

demonstrate

transitive verb
1 : to show clearly demonstrate
2a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence
b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples

Do you agree the human species reproduces through sexual intercourse, if so that is the evidence for proposing the purpose of sexual intercourse.

No, it's not. That X is done by a B does not mean that the 'purpose' of B something is A. My glasses are held up by my nose - does that make holding up glasses the 'purpose' of noses?

Do you really think your evolution is based on sexual pleasure? Survival of the sexiest.

You really shouldn't go here. Evolution is hugely based on sexual pleasure. Being the most attractive (or tricking prospective mates into thinking you are) is a major factor in evolution.

 

[BMS]

No, my first response is to point out a nonsensical statement when you make one.

Wrong

demonstrate

transitive verb
1 : to show clearly demonstrate
2a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence
b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples

So is it you dont understand or you just refuse to apply it?

No, it's not.

So you are saying the human species doesnt reproduce through sexual intercourse?

That X is done by a B does not mean that the 'purpose' of B something is A.

Doesnt make sense.

My glasses are held up by my nose - does that make holding up glasses the 'purpose' of noses?

Can you see properly without your glasses? If not then the purpose of your glasses is to see. If you can, then you dont need glasses. Your attempt at an analogy shows how you cant understand basic logic
Can the human species reproduce and survive with reproduction, no, so that is the purpose of sexual intercourse.

You really shouldn't go here.

I was addressing where you are.

Evolution is hugely based on sexual pleasure.

Not what I said. Evolution requires the reproduction and pleasure just aids it.
In reality no amount of pleasure will cause reproduction, the pleasure is merely a motivation.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Wrong

So is it you dont understand or you just refuse to apply it?

So you are saying the human species doesnt reproduce through sexual intercourse?

Strawman.

Doesnt make sense.

Yes, it does. Do you want me to explain it?

Can you see properly without your glasses? If not then the purpose of your glasses is to see. If you can, then you dont need glasses. Your attempt at an analogy shows how you cant understand basic logic

Try actually addressing the analogy instead of ignoring it then making false claims about it.

Can the human species reproduce and survive with reproduction, no, so that is the purpose of sexual intercourse.

Already addressed. That humans reproduce sex does not mean that reproduction is the 'purpose' of sex.

I was addressing where you are.

No, you were not.

Not what I said. Evolution requires the reproduction and pleasure just aids it.

It's precisely what you said. "Survival of the sexiest' were your words.

In reality no amount of pleasure will cause reproduction, the pleasure is merely a motivation.

Strawman, nobody ever said otherwise.