Sex, moderation, and responsibility...what is appropriate?

[brainshmain]

condoms seem to justify the practice of non-sexual intercourse, in other words, no longer does intercourse have to be about the union of male and female genitals. climax could be attained some other way. the male genital, with a condom over it, becomes simply a pleasure instrument.

I don't understand this logic.  Condoms justify non-sexual intercourse?  That's like saying forks justify annorexia  
There are reasons that humans use the sexual organs for pleasure rather than reproduction alone.  There are many animals that don't get pleasure from sex, because they don't have the same nervous system as us.  Humans have nerves that create pleasure when stimulated on the penis, testicles, vagina, clitoris, anus, even nipples.  If sex was not pleasurable, people would only have it for reproductive purposes, but there is nothing wrong with using what you have to gain pleasure if thats what it was made for.

when it comes to abortion, I am pretty much zero tolerance. I believe the unborn child is a human being, and I don't believe anyone has a right to cause harm to another human being, whether it be theft, rape, murder, scandal or otherwise. if we allow people to harm each other, there is chaos in society.

Well, I can't argue with you about an unborn child being a human, because I don't believe life begins at conception.  The mass of cells that will become a person is so small and undeveloped, I don't believe that it is trouble to remove it.  Much like a parasite, for the majority of the pregnancy the fetus leeches off its mother, absorbing food, oxygen, blood, and energy.  In my opinion, it is not a human because it cannot survive on its own once disconnected from its host.  I believe life begins around the third trimester, once the child can think cognatively and can feel and contemplate.
Since 1973, there have been 40 MILLION abortions in the US!  Can you imagine the massive effect all those people would be on our economy, culture, environment, etc if they weren't aborted?  Natural resources would be is shorter supply than they already are.  Not the mention the fact that because they were aborted, we can assume they were unwanted.  It's been statistically proven that the vast majority of children abused by their parents were not planned by the couple.  A large number of those babies, if not aborted, would be likely to be subject to abuse and become burdens upon society.  Not all, of course, but it's more likely for them than wanted pregnancies.
There are over 150 million orphans worldwide.  It's more beneficial to adopt that continue to breed children.

the mentality behind IVF is that artificial conception is ok - playing with embryos in a dish. it breeds irreverence for human life.

My best friend was conceived artificially because her mother is gay and chose to have a child with her partner through IVF.  No one sees my friend as any less of a human because of the way she was conceived.  It still involved a human sperm fertilizing a human egg.  I don't see how you could have a problem with that, or think that people will find human life irrevelant by developing new ways to create it.

[SteveS]

brainshmain, your middle paragraph,

Well, I can't argue with you about an unborn child being a human, because I don't believe life begins at conception. The mass of cells that will become a person is so small and undeveloped, I don't believe that it is trouble to remove it. Much like a parasite, for the majority of the pregnancy the fetus leeches off its mother, absorbing food, oxygen, blood, and energy. In my opinion, it is not a human because it cannot survive on its own once disconnected from its host. I believe life begins around the third trimester, once the child can think cognatively and can feel and contemplate.
Since 1973, there have been 40 MILLION abortions in the US! Can you imagine the massive effect all those people would be on our economy, culture, environment, etc if they weren't aborted? Natural resources would be is shorter supply than they already are. Not the mention the fact that because they were aborted, we can assume they were unwanted. It's been statistically proven that the vast majority of children abused by their parents were not planned by the couple. A large number of those babies, if not aborted, would be likely to be subject to abuse and become burdens upon society. Not all, of course, but it's more likely for them than wanted pregnancies.

is dead on target (IMHO).  I couldn't agree with these sentiments any more strongly.

For some more really interesting stuff about abortion, here's a great article over at WebMD
I think the facts and stats in the article speak for themselves.

Do you think wasting sperm is wrong? If you don't masturbate it will be naturally expelled (wasted) eventually anyway.

This reminded me of Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred

[brainshmain]

Not to mention the fact that if there wasn't abortion, I wouldn't be alive!  It sounds kinda weird, but my mom had an abortion in her early twenties after the man who got her pregnant broke her heart.  She didn't feel able to handle a child without a partner, and didn't want her child to be the spawn on someone she hated, so she had it aborted.  If she had kept the child, I would have never been born 10 years later.  Who knows, that baby could have turned out be be a smelly Evangelical Christian
J/K

[SteveS]

She didn't feel able to handle a child without a partner

Yeah, I know exactly how that fear feels.  When my first daughter was born my wife was suffering from Preeclampsia.  After delivery there were several times when her blood pressure rose very high.  I was watching the pressure monitor and feeding this little baby out of bottles and wondering, if my wife died, how was I going to be able to deal with that loss and then raise a baby by myself all at the same time?  Luckily things worked out, two days later she was fine.

I view the extreme pro-lifers to be cruel.  In their zeal to protect potential people they seem to lack compassion for actual people.

Who knows, that baby could have turned out be be a smelly Evangelical Christian

Perish the thought!

[easytrak]

i will go back to the main issue, which is the fact that sex has three aspects: pleasure, love and procreation. love and procreation requires responsibility. various techniques are used which try to avoid responsibility, by removing the love and procreative aspects away from sex, leaving only pleasure.

i can't prove 100% that an embryo is human from conception. but what are the implications of it not being human? sex is no longer actually "procreative" unless the "thing" is allowed to grow for x months. it seems simply like a way to avoid responsibility for a deed done.

i know of course there are many moral dilemnas e.g. child conceived of rape or a bad man, woman dying in childbirth, homosexual people who are in love. but there cannot be compromise, because all three aspects are important to sex.

[Whitney]

Why do you think that love and procreation must always be tied to sex?  I'm assuming this is a religious view but if it is true then there should be a way to prove this logically.

We know that you don't have to love someone to have sex.  We also know that you don't have to recieve pleasure to procreate (ie; rape, IVF, those who don't get pleasure from sex, etc).  We also know that sex, even without protection, does not always lead to conception/procreation.

Obviously sex can easily be associated with love, procreation, and pleasure...but it's not necessarily tied to those things.

[brainshmain]

i know of course there are many moral dilemnas e.g. child conceived of rape or a bad man, woman dying in childbirth, homosexual people who are in love......

Okay, I can see how you would connect the abortion debate to the first two 'moral dilemnas' you listed  (should a rape victim be allowed to have an abortion if impregnated; if the woman is having health complications, should they terminate the birth to save her life?), but........ gay people in love?  Gay people being in love have nothing to do with abortion.  Quite the contrary, they have no chance of naturally conceiving a child together.  No member of a monogamous gay relationship would EVER have to consider having an abortion.  Duh.  :roll:

[easytrak]

laetusatheos, an important principle of life i believe is that if we want to receive, we should also be willing to give. i think love and procreation are the sacrificial aspects of sexuality, where we give. if we are willing to give, it means we truly believe that what we want to receive is worth it.

you are right though: we have found ways to sever the procreative and loving aspects of sex. isn't that what makes sex very addictive? the greatest addictions are those which give a lot of pleasure for little sacrifice.

brainshmain, what i meant was that homosexuals in love do not practice procreative intercourse (though it could be loving and pleasurable), and this is a dilemna because we want intercourse to always be sexual, but we also feel sorry for the two men or two women in love.

[donkeyhoty]

the greatest addictions are those which give a lot of pleasure for little sacrifice

nope, addiction is continuing to do or use something regardless of the negative aspects it has on your being.  It's not an addiction if it has no negative effect on your life.

[Whitney]

we have found ways to sever the procreative and loving aspects of sex. isn't that what makes sex very addictive? the greatest addictions are those which give a lot of pleasure for little sacrifice.

Um, no.  People will have sex regardless of if it has consequences or not.  Take for example those areas in Africa where having sex is very likely to transmit aids...they still do it even if they don't have condoms available and/or have been taught by missionaries that condoms are bad.

Something is not an addiction unless it is associated with negative consequences.  Examples of sex addiction would be a person who repeatedly has high risk sex or is unable to refrain from sex while at work.  Can you think of an addiction that doesn't have a lot of sacrifices attached to it?  I can't...it really wouldn't be an addiction if it didn't have sacrifices.  As I said before, I don't think sex is necessarily addictive.

[brainshmain]

brainshmain, what i meant was that homosexuals in love do not practice procreative intercourse (though it could be loving and pleasurable), and this is a dilemna because we want intercourse to always be sexual, but we also feel sorry for the two men or two women in love.

That still has nothing to do with abortion.  Abortion and gay marriage are in no way correlated.  And the excuse that anti-gay activists use that gay people shouldn't marry because they can't procreate is ridiculous and biased.  If we only allowed people who were fertile to marry, we would have to limit elderly people, infertile couples or couples with one infertile member, etc.  You can't pick and choose who can and can't marry according to your bigoted opinion.

[Tom62]

All good things in life are forbidden by theists because they distract people from their gods. This absurd, bigoted worldview has been ruining the lifes of countless people, since the origin of theism.

[easytrak]

addictions don't always have immediate negative consequences. for instance i might smoke a few packets of cigarrettes a day yet not even get lung cancer till about 40 years down the track. though i agree the negative consequences are there.

the problem with gay unions is that they are not sexual. so how do gay people have intercourse? they can't. so you can't put gay unions on the same level as male-female unions. that's just the way things are, biologically speaking.

tom62 i agree in part with what you said. theists put God as the highest good in their lives and are careful not to put lesser goods (gods) above him. that it has often been done in tyrannical fashion at times is regrettable. i don't agree with the idea that all theists are out to bend others to their will, except perhaps where there is injustice e.g. rape, murder.

[Whitney]

addictions don't always have immediate negative consequences. for instance i might smoke a few packets of cigarrettes a day yet not even get lung cancer till about 40 years down the track. though i agree the negative consequences are there.

And if we can prevent the negative consequences of sex...then how again is it an addicition if the person doesn't obsess over sex?

the problem with gay unions is that they are not sexual. so how do gay people have intercourse? they can't. so you can't put gay unions on the same level as male-female unions. that's just the way things are, biologically speaking.

Oh, gay relations can definitely be sexual.  They just do it in a different way.  I didn't know we judged the worthiness of a marital union based on if traditional intercourse can be achieved on not.  By your reasoning no heterosexual couple's marriage should be on the "same level" as other marriages if one partner is unable to physically have intercourse.

[donkeyhoty]

what about old people, if they can't get-it-on anymore are their marriages a sham?

except perhaps where there is injustice e.g. rape, murder.

Do you mean when the religious rape and murder to bend a conquered populace to their will?  Or when missionaries attempt to help a downtrodden populace, as long as they accept the teachings of that church?