Elder andersen on abortion

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reckless disregard for the consequence of one’s poor choice may not be a consent to that consequence, but that scarcely justifies removal of the consequence, especially to the detriment of an innocent party. 

No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body.

This is clearly one of your articles of faith.

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is clearly one of your articles of faith.

Nope, but I do think it is a sound moral principle.

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope, but I do think it is a sound moral principle.

Yes, it's clear that you dogmatically believe so.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body.

You should add an addendum to this statement. It should read, “No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body, even if it was her choice to conceive that human being in the first place.”

I appreciate your frankness. At least you refer to the unborn child as a human being, instead of going down the cowardly “it’s just clump of cells” route.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, it's clear that you dogmatically believe so.

Regardless of whether I do or not, it's not for you to say what I believe.

 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

You should add an addendum to this statement. It should read, “No one should be forced to carry another human being inside their body, even if it was her choice to conceive that human being in the first place.”

I do not equate consensual sex with consent to be impregnated. 

But yes, even women who wanted to conceive might find reason later to end the pregnancy. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Regardless of whether I do or not, it's not for you to say what I believe.

Certainly not. You are doing an excellent job on your own of telling us what you believe, what you privilege, and the assumptions that underlie those beliefs and value judgements.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Certainly not. You are doing an excellent job on your own of telling us what you believe, what you privilege, and the assumptions that underlie those beliefs and value judgements.

Good. Then please avoid telling me what I believe. 

Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope, but I do think it is a sound moral principle.

How about this: No couple should engage in sexual relations without a clear and agreed upon determination to give birth to and care for the human being that might result. Is that a sound moral principle?

 

After you’ve ruminated on that, here’s another question: In most Western societies, parents are required by law to feed, clothe, shelter and educate their offspring until maturity. Is that a sound moral principle? If not, why not?

Edited April 12, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about this: No couple should engage in sexual relations without a clear and agreed upon determination to give birth to and care for the human being that might result. Is that a sound moral principle?

No, I don't think it is. It relies on the premise that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of sexual relations.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I don't think it is. It relies on the premise that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of sexual relations.

As if a man and a woman who consensually engage in sexual activity are unaware of the very real possibility that they’re going to bring another autonomous human being into the world by knowingly participating in an activity that they know full well is fundamentally procreative in nature. Under such circumstances, a human life is worth no more than the ephemeral pleasure of an orgasm. It’s as if to say, “I have the right to kill you if you came into the world as a consequence of my wanting to engage in some grossly irresponsible ‘fun.’”

And just because feticide is legalized in the world of men doesn’t mean one can escape from the very real destructive consequences of choosing to slaughter one’s own child. And even more tragically, the only way it’s actually possible to “escape” from the painful consequences of choosing to slaughter your own children is to allow yourself to gradually become so sociopathically callous, cold and indifferent toward your own offspring until you’ve finally lost all humanity. A world filled with such insentient people is a world doomed to collective suicide because everyone would be filled with such self loathing that empty, unfulfilling, selfish pleasure would be the only reason to want to go on living.

Edited April 12, 2021 by teddyaware

[Meadowchik]

49 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As if a man and a woman who consensually engage in sexual activity are unaware of the very real possibility that they’re going to bring another autonomous human being into the world by knowingly participating in an activity that they know full well is fundamentally procreative in nature. Under such circumstances, a human life is worth no more than the ephemeral pleasure of an orgasm. It’s as if to say, “I have the right to kill you if you came into the world as a consequence of my wanting to engage in some grossly irresponsible ‘fun.’”

And just because feticide is legalized in the world of men doesn’t mean one can escape from the very real destructive consequences of choosing to slaughter one’s own child. And even more tragically, the only way it’s actually possible to “escape” from the painful consequences of choosing to slaughter your own children is to allow yourself to gradually become so sociopathically callous, cold and indifferent toward your own offspring until you’ve finally lost all humanity. A world filled with such insentient people is a world doomed to collective suicide because everyone would be filled with such self loathing that empty, unfulfilling, selfish pleasure would be the only reason to want to go on living.

If that's how you really feel, perhaps you should be more concerned about forcing men to control their ejaculate:

Mandatory vasectomies for all until they have signed a contract of procreation with a woman.

 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I don't think it is. It relies on the premise that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of sexual relations.

Not really. It can be interpreted as understanding that the sex consented to is meant to be recreational, but if one gets pregnant by accident, then the couple accepts it as their responsibility to care for the child that is the result. 
 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really. It can be interpreted as understanding that the sex consented to is meant to be recreational, but if one gets pregnant by accident, then the couple accepts it as their responsibility to care for the child that is the result. 
 

I disagree. There are people who use birth control to prevent pregnancy because they *cannot* safely carry a pregnancy. Saying they must agree to continue it if the birth control fails is wrong. Saying they shouldn't have sex if they aren't prepared to continue through a pregnancy is wrong. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I disagree. There are people who use birth control to prevent pregnancy because they *cannot* safely carry a pregnancy. Saying they must agree to continue it if the birth control fails is wrong. Saying they shouldn't have sex if they aren't prepared to continue through a pregnancy is wrong. 

Are you disagreeing in the sense of rejecting that is a valid interpretation or are you disagreeing that it is an appropriate moral position?

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you disagreeing in the sense of rejecting that is a valid interpretation or are you disagreeing that it is an appropriate moral position?

Both.

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I do not equate consensual sex with consent to be impregnated. 

This does not compute.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation (see, e.g., millions of years of evolution for, you know, like, every living thing on the planet).

When someone who is capable of procreation willingly participates in sex, the creation of new life is the natural consequence of that act. 

What I see you trying to do here is to apply the principle of choice not merely to the act of sex itself but to the consequences of sex as well.

But I don't think that tracks. It's like saying 'I do not equate consensual bank robbing with consent to be imprisioned.' 

Consent to the act is consent to the consequences. 

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The primary purpose of sex is procreation

Not really...sexual behaviour is complex, even in less developed animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals

Edited April 12, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If that's how you really feel, perhaps you should be more concerned about forcing men to control their ejaculate:

Mandatory vasectomies for all until they have signed a contract of procreation with a woman.

 

 

This is obfuscation. Even abortion opponents don’t advocate mandatory sterilization of women who will not agree in advance to carrying a pregnancy full term. 
 

But if a workable way could be found to force a male to bear responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy — up to and including prison time and fines for refusing to do so — I would be all for it. The fact that such a way has not (yet) been found does not excuse the killing on demand of a fetus. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I don't think it is. It relies on the premise that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of sexual relations.

I added a question to my post later that you might have missed. It is this:

 In most Western societies, parents are required by law to feed, clothe, shelter and educate their offspring until maturity. Is that a sound moral principle? If not, why not?

If it is “a sound moral principle” to allow a woman for any reason whatever to expel a fetus — which you have tacitly admitted is a human being — is it also “a sound moral principle” to permit parents to render their minor offspring homeless for no other reason than the parents no longer desire to care for the offspring? If not, why not?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not really...sexual behaviour is complex, even in less developed animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals

Be that as it may, it still appears that throughout the animal kingdom, the primary purpose for sexual pleasure is to induce individuals to propagate and thus ensure the continuation of the species. Even the argument that it promotes bonding in humans breaks down when one observes that a couple will engage in it who otherwise have little or no affinity for each other. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not really...sexual behaviour is complex, even in less developed animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals

I'm speaking of the primary purpose for sex existing, not that procreation is the primary reason behind every sexual encounter. 

Or, as stated in the referenced Wiki page, "procreation continues to be the primary explanation for sexual behavior."

 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

This does not compute.

The primary purpose of sex is procreation (see, e.g., millions of years of evolution for, you know, like, every living thing on the planet).

When someone who is capable of procreation willingly participates in sex, the creation of new life is the natural consequence of that act. 

What I see you trying to do here is to apply the principle of choice not merely to the act of sex itself but to the consequences of sex as well.

But I don't think that tracks. It's like saying 'I do not equate consensual bank robbing with consent to be imprisioned.' 

Consent to the act is consent to the consequences. 

 

This isn’t accurate. It’s a common trope and makes sense on the surface....until you really think about it. 

Intercourse in general from only a reproductive stance formed to share genetic material to create genetically diverse offspring. It is one form of reproduction. Some species adhere to using it primarIly for that. But several use it for a variety reasons: fun, bonding, conflict resolution, etc. For some species the reproductive function has become secondary for these social functions. That includes us. ThinK of it this way if you tallied all the times that a person has a s*xual encounter in their life and then cross off all the ones that didn’t include intercourse, all the ones that didn’t happen during ovulation, the times it happen between opposite sex partners, and the times it didn’t happen with major physical and hormonal barriers to impede reproduction ...you aren’t going to have more than a small fraction of their total sexual interactions. And that’s if you don’t distinguish between actively/passively trying and oopsies. It likely will shrink even further.
 

evolution often includes using the same biological function in multiple needed ways to continue a species. Social interactions are fundamental to human health. So I would posture considering most of the the interactions a sexually active person will have is non reproductive and therefore outside the reproductive imperative, that the primary purpose in humans for sex is social. 
 

Okay, I’m off my sex therapy soap box. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[CV75]

The Church seems to a base her policy on Abortion on the moral prohibition against killing (or "anything like unto it”), not adultery (or "anything like unto it”) or selfish misuse of the fountains of life: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title98

At what point is killing (interrupting nature's course) favored over allowing or even supporting nature's process of gestating a human being to term?