Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 80
40
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Yes and no basically depending on how you view it. You could argue that the developing fetus is a part of the mothers body as it grew from one of her eggs, or you could argue it's unique DNA means it isn't a part of her body. But i the end the mother has to support that fetus, it uses her liver, her kidneys, her endocrine system and all of the rest. I think someone should be allowed control over such things.


If the developing baby in her womb were a part of her body then there would be no need for an umbilical cord and placenta.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
When i say burden i simply mean the physical effects it has on the body. As for sex being all about reproduction you might want to check the animal kingdom a little more, especially primates. Sex seems to also be a bonding experience for primates, that's why we as humans, even in monogomous relationships continue to do it using protection. The chemical changes in the brain have very deep effects, especially if repeated over time.

Also the primary purpose of something is rather undermined as an argument when people use protection to try and stop it from happening don't you think?


I keep referring to this essay, as I have already addressed the majority of these issues more comprehensively there. It certainly addresses this topic in depth. Here is a relavant response from "The Pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy", by M.F. Alexander aka mrphilosophias:


Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
It is no secret that sexual intercourse causes pregnancy, and it should come as no surprise if life should be conceived as a result of this intimate act, in fact it cannot be denied that sexual reproduction, procreation, and conceiving are the primary, and sole, purpose for sexual intercourse. This is the purpose of life says the biologist and the evolutionist. Even the remarkable pleasure and bonding intimacy experienced during the act of sexual intercourse is biologically engineered by means of evolution to encourage and reinforce procreation, and to strengthen the bond between mates, but not primarily for bonding in and of itself, but rather to foster an environment most conducive to the well being of their progeny.

...

Sexuality is a physical expression of love, which is the selfless gift of self and our highest calling, this participation in sexual intimacy is intended to be complete, yet when you have sex with a hardened heart to the gift of love which is life, and you refuse the possibility of the mutual giving of self to give rise to new life, then you are denying the sanctity and solemnity of this sacred gift!


Pardoning this brief digression and returning again to the matter of the purpose of sexual intercourse, at least according to nature, it is clear that it is inextricably connected to reproduction, and continuation of species, and that pleasure and bonding are absolutely incredible processes which serve to reinforce that we will have sex to ensure procreation(propagation of genes), and to strengthen the intimate bond between mates to encourage the ideal environment for the developing Human Being: a stable loving environment with both parents to teach and learn male and female role models from, and siblings to play, learn, and grow with. Children provide parents with a unique opportunity to grow (mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) in many ways which would otherwise be difficult, and bring laughter and joy to the family. The more obvious reason that it benefits parents to reproduce and raise children is additional hands to help with the necessary daily chores.


If this is the case then why are people having sex when they are not interested in reproduction, or even open to the possibility of life? Why hasn’t anyone clued these dissonant people into the reality that sexual intercourse and reproduction are intimately entwined? This question strikes at the very heart of the topic of abortion, and it strongly suggests that it is not a question awaiting an explanation from biology, ethics, or politics, but implies that the prevailing ideas propagated by society and artificial culture are to blame, and that we have allowed ourselves to be deceived!


It could not be plainer to see: Western civilization loves sex, and wants to have sex, and wants to be free to have sex whenever, however, and with whomever we desire without any regard for this power and responsibility which has been entrusted to us. This is a fundamental perversion of what sexuality is: that the pleasure-reward and bonding of sexuality is an ends in and of itself, which it is, but to have the pleasure-reward and at the same time not be open even to the possibility that anything like a living, breathing Being may come from it is a selfish deviation from the primary purpose of sex, is is a perversion of love itself!


When entertaining this idea that sex is a recreational activity with no meaning other than a shallow intimacy and fulfillment of carnal desire, and fleshly impulses, it is not an animal that you are acting as, for the other creatures obey the natural laws and biological imperatives! The primary purpose of sexuality is procreation, and the secondary purpose, which is an ends in and of itself as well, but not without openness to life and love, is bonding or intimacy and naturally, it is profoundly rewarding, but the purpose for this reward is not for the pleasure itself, it’s to ensure that we engage in sex often to reproduce, and the bonding is good in and of itself so long as it is in love, which is necessarily complete and open to life, but it is primarily to reinforce the behavior and strengthen the bonds between mates so as to foster an environment conducive to the birth, growth, development and care giving of progeny. This perspective on sexuality is a perspective that the world is in dire need of, as something as intangible as this idea about sexuality that Western culture instills upon us is demonstrably unnatural, maladaptive, and in fact as will also be demonstrated, deadly serious.
The primary purpose of eating food is for sustenance, but it tastes good, and it is intimately rewarding. The pleasure and reward mechanisms of eating food is, if the story ‘they’ tell us is true, good in and of itself, but only because it encourages and reinforces consumption of healthy nutritional sustenance. That food tastes good is a hard-wired ‘fail-safe’ mechanism to ensure that Human Beings would take the time necessary to eat often, as this is what the body requires, and it tastes good and is rewarding. It should be apparent how this parallels the primary and corollary functions and experiences of human sexuality. The example of food may prove to be a near perfect analogy from this biological perspective, as reproduction is as much a biological imperative as eating.


When it comes to food what is it called when someone seeks the secondary/corollary function/experience from eating, but at the same time is not open to the primary purpose of eating; in other words, how does on describe a glutton who lusts for the flavors and tastes, pleasure and experience of eating different foods, but at the same time refuses to receive sustenance? I’ll give you a hint, it is a disorder; this sort of person is demonstrated well by the poor soul who suffers from Bulimia, which is a dis-order, it is maladaptive, harmful, and it is clearly unnatural, or contrary to biological imperative which evolution allegedly devised. Is it now clear how having sex for please, and at the same time obstinately refusing to partake in the creation of life, which is the primary purpose of sex, could be understood as being dis-ordered, maladaptive, unnatural, and harmful? Take some time to try to rationalize, justify, excuse or exclude yourself, your world view, and maybe past choices you have made, and take some more time to tear apart the logic, but it is quite clear, and as concise as possible: modern Western Civilization has led to the prevalence of hedonism & unbridled Human sexuality for purposes of pleasure alone, as a result of perceived acceptability of this idea there have been 70 million aborted babies, which is a genocide of the most innocent humans alive; this is the pinnacle of modern Human tragedy, and it is on us to do something about it.
edit on 9-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by grahag
 



It IS the termination of life, but I don't think anyone is picking that particular nit, so it doesn't make sense for you to argue it when no one is disputing that.

There are very few that have been able to admit that abortion is killing a human life. Are you ok with the word "killing"?
It is easier for them to say it is "removing a clump of cells"...it allows them to deny the fact that they support the killing of human life.
I use murder because from my point of view a fetus is a living human being in an early stage of development...no different than a newborn...just a few more months earlier in development.
Besides a court ruling (which is just a group of peoples opinion), no one can provide any argument based on solid logic nor science to claim otherwise. I don't allow a court ruling to dictate my opinion or use of words.


I'm totally fine with the term "killing", because that's what it is. For what you're killing, it's a big deal and I think that most people going through it wouldn't think it was a small deal, but it's not a baby OR a person, or even a being yet, but it has the potential to be, which is why it's important to do the abortion early on and most laws recognize that.

Murder is a legal term. If you're concerned about being correct, then don't use it. You can call it killing a fetus and still be correct. Calling it murder makes you wrong though.

If you use the word, "murder", then your point of view is wrong. It's also not genocide. That's what this entire thread was about. Arguing anything else could be a task for another thread, but we know where you stand.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 



Murder is a legal term. If you're concerned about being correct, then don't use it. You can call it killing a fetus and still be correct. Calling it murder makes you wrong though.

If you use the word, "murder", then your point of view is wrong. It's also not genocide. That's what this entire thread was about. Arguing anything else could be a task for another thread, but we know where you stand


Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Maslo.

Why do people who kill a pregnant women, no matter what stage of pregnancy get charged with a double MURDER?


I've never used genocide, that is the OPs language...it is all semantics. You are looking to the courts to define those semantics....others are using common sense. Legal terms are not the terms we use in everday life...if we are going to examine each word as used in legal terms...most of our sentences wouldn't make much sense.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by grahag
 



Murder is a legal term. If you're concerned about being correct, then don't use it. You can call it killing a fetus and still be correct. Calling it murder makes you wrong though.

If you use the word, "murder", then your point of view is wrong. It's also not genocide. That's what this entire thread was about. Arguing anything else could be a task for another thread, but we know where you stand


Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Maslo.

Why do people who kill a pregnant women, no matter what stage of pregnancy get charged with a double MURDER?


I've never used genocide, that is the OPs language...it is all semantics. You are looking to the courts to define those semantics....others are using common sense. Legal terms are not the terms we use in everday life...if we are going to examine each word as used in legal terms...most of our sentences wouldn't make much sense.


I have used biological facts, and legal definitions, with a little logic, and no matter how you cut it, abortion is ethically unacceptable



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The way I see it, a lot of the time if someone is prepared to abort their kid then they're not ready to raise a child in the world - in some circumstances it may be more humane to prevent the foetus from developing into an unloved child, destined to be chewed up by the system and psychologically tortured throughout life. If a kids destined for a family that can't afford to provide for it or aren't willing to love it, then maybe its more humane to not give birth but abortions should be done ASAP imo.

However, people are way too complacent and really need to be careful with contraception if they're not ready to give birth to a child. It's such an easy thing to remember, no matter how drunk you are! People who have unprotected sex with someone they've just met really annoy me, they think they're so cool that they can pwn biology itself. If they take all precautionary measures and the girl still gets pregnant, well its a tough call because its not like they were careless, they went out of their way to avoid the risk. I think they should have the right to decide early on, what if they're some 16 year olds living in broken homes themselves?

But yeah, if you're not ready to have a kid then be bloody careful when you're fooling around! The most unfortunate thing is that a large number of those abortions are probably people who couldn't be bothered to use appropriate protection. The wannabe Gnarly Gnarlingtons that bi-pwnz Biology. Maybe if someone wants an abortion, force them to take a lie detector test and ask if they bothered to use contraception - if yes, then abort mission, if no then too bad - deal with it
. Jokes, jokes.

Having said that, if they did suddenly outlaw abortions as murder you can be damned sure people would pull their socks up when it comes to contraception
. Genocide? Whole other story..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by grahag
 



Murder is a legal term. If you're concerned about being correct, then don't use it. You can call it killing a fetus and still be correct. Calling it murder makes you wrong though.

If you use the word, "murder", then your point of view is wrong. It's also not genocide. That's what this entire thread was about. Arguing anything else could be a task for another thread, but we know where you stand


Then I'll ask you the same question I asked Maslo.

Why do people who kill a pregnant women, no matter what stage of pregnancy get charged with a double MURDER?


I've never used genocide, that is the OPs language...it is all semantics. You are looking to the courts to define those semantics....others are using common sense. Legal terms are not the terms we use in everday life...if we are going to examine each word as used in legal terms...most of our sentences wouldn't make much sense.


Because it wasn't the mother's decision. I'm not sure about the validity of your statement regarding the stage of development though. Care to back it up?

And semantics is what sometimes prevents someone from going to prison, so the legal term is important. If you call someone a murderer because they participated in an abortion, then you are factually incorrect. Murder is specifically separated from other charges such as homicide or manslaughter and you've proven that you've wanted to be factually correct in your posts.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
I have used biological facts, and legal definitions, with a little logic, and no matter how you cut it, abortion is ethically unacceptable


To you.

To the courts, it's still legal and I still think that it's only up to the person carrying that child to decide what to do.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Infaticide has been around for thousands of years, and probably will continue for many more. If anyone did any research, they would see the good and the bad. In one sense, people die for a reason. In another sense, people die for no reason.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is abortion is a decision that can be left only to the person making it. There is so much controversy about it because people try to extend their hand of god to take away the choice of another human being. that is the only atrocity being committed. It's the same kind of problem as trying to outlaw a piece of nature(marijuana). It goes against all common sense. Even as far down to wearing a seatbelt being regulated by the law is a rape of our individual freedoms. In a matter that affects only the person involved, only that person can make the decision. That is the bottom line.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
If you would stop ignoring your previous statements where you admit that a fetus is human life...then we wouldn't have to go round and round like this.

Please define "fully formed and functional". Last time I checked...a newborn isn't "fully formed"...it is still developing. "Functional" is a whole other story...are mentally challenged individuals "functional"?


You can continue to deny biology...it just makes you look foolish.


MindSpin, all of this has already been answered. It's odd you talk about me ignoring previous statements when you are ignoring the rather lengthy discussions we had. I have admitted that a fetus is biological life absolutely, actually i never denied it was, i denied it's a human life in every other sense and doesn't deserve legal protection until it develops the possibility of sentience.

Your inability to remember these past arguments is surprising, more likely you remember them perfectly well and you are now lying and spinning as you usually do.

We have completely addessed the functioning thing as well when we talked about people who are brain dead many pages back, i think Maslo also dealt with that issue. Again you forget all of these replies and try to spin it.

I won't go over the same stuff again and again, go back and read it.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Dear Mrwhatever,
Did you just quote an American English dictionary? I'm still laughing. Since you like using this as a defacto response: try again!

American English.. bwuahahahahaha. That's like Nigerian French right?

Or Brazilian Portuguese?

Or Mexican Spanish?

Come on, try harder.. seriously. Vindicate a fascist and religious stance on a woman's right to choose whether to have or abort a child based on the definition of child.. I implore you, it will be far more entertaining that anything else you're coming out with.

Edit - Oh I just saw this, had to comment. You state "I have used biological facts, and legal definitions, with a little logic, and no matter how you cut it, abortion is ethically unacceptable " Ethics based on who's definition of ethics? Let's push your buttons a bit here shall we. If it were truly unacceptable, why is it lawfully allowed? Why under certain country's base laws and European law is it ethically acceptable? Ethics, as you state, are simply a point of view. There is no set in stone book on ethics... so, again I use your prefered phrase: Try again! Or as Charlie Sheen would say .. LOSING!

All that you anti abortion people are proving is how narrow minded and singular minded you are, let alone selfish beyond belief. If abortion were made unlawful, do you even have an idea of the harm it would cause to those children aborted for MORAL (not ethical) reasons? Or how world hunger would take a huge upturn in .. well months? Or how many children would be killed by their raped mothers due to the fact they cannot stand a physical representation of the act of the rape? I mean seriously, do any of you think before you post? Have ANY of you had to make that choice? Or are you all just sitting back spewing forth venom to inflict your views on other people's rights? You all make me sick and ashamed to be part of this community.

Cheers,
T



edit on 10-3-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-3-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-3-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
If the developing baby in her womb were a part of her body then there would be no need for an umbilical cord and placenta.


So the original egg she gave isn't a part of the fetus anymore? There is nothing of the woman in the child? Either way it is taking up residence in her body if you want to try that line of argument, it is using her resources. Indeed if you want to argue along these lines you could refer to it as a parasite like a tape worm. In a strict biological sense of course.




Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
It is no secret that sexual intercourse causes pregnancy, and it should come as no surprise if life should be conceived as a result of this intimate act, in fact it cannot be denied that sexual reproduction, procreation, and conceiving are the primary, and sole, purpose for sexual intercourse. This is the purpose of life says the biologist and the evolutionist. Even the remarkable pleasure and bonding intimacy experienced during the act of sexual intercourse is biologically engineered by means of evolution to encourage and reinforce procreation, and to strengthen the bond between mates, but not primarily for bonding in and of itself, but rather to foster an environment most conducive to the well being of their progeny.


How does this explain other primates we share a common ancestor with who use sex as a social bonding exercise? Mecacs (sp) have tons of sex with both male and female members of it's group. Also how does the above quote explain homosexuality? Homosexual shave sex, no chance of having a baby and sex is still a bonding experience.

While sex may very well centre around procreation the bonding element shouldn't be written off as a mere side effect.


Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
Sexuality is a physical expression of love, which is the selfless gift of self and our highest calling, this participation in sexual intimacy is intended to be complete, yet when you have sex with a hardened heart to the gift of love which is life, and you refuse the possibility of the mutual giving of self to give rise to new life, then you are denying the sanctity and solemnity of this sacred gift!


Wait, refuse the possibility of the mutual giving of self to give rise to new life................this almost sounds like an anti-condom comment. Please correct me if i'm wrong, it sounds like a religious argument and so an agenda.


Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
Pardoning this brief digression and returning again to the matter of the purpose of sexual intercourse, at least according to nature, it is clear that it is inextricably connected to reproduction, and continuation of species, and that pleasure and bonding are absolutely incredible processes which serve to reinforce that we will have sex to ensure procreation(propagation of genes), and to strengthen the intimate bond between mates to encourage the ideal environment for the developing Human Being: a stable loving environment with both parents to teach and learn male and female role models from, and siblings to play, learn, and grow with. Children provide parents with a unique opportunity to grow (mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) in many ways which would otherwise be difficult, and bring laughter and joy to the family. The more obvious reason that it benefits parents to reproduce and raise children is additional hands to help with the necessary daily chores.


Again this entire passage utterly ignores the use of sex with birth control. If it's all about procreation and the bond is nothing more than a reward to keep you trying for children, then how does the author explain homosexual couples, how does he explain couples who don't want children but still have sex? The article seems incomplete.


Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
If this is the case then why are people having sex when they are not interested in reproduction, or even open to the possibility of life? Why hasn’t anyone clued these dissonant people into the reality that sexual intercourse and reproduction are intimately entwined? This question strikes at the very heart of the topic of abortion, and it strongly suggests that it is not a question awaiting an explanation from biology, ethics, or politics, but implies that the prevailing ideas propagated by society and artificial culture are to blame, and that we have allowed ourselves to be deceived!

It could not be plainer to see: Western civilization loves sex, and wants to have sex, and wants to be free to have sex whenever, however, and with whomever we desire without any regard for this power and responsibility which has been entrusted to us. This is a fundamental perversion of what sexuality is: that the pleasure-reward and bonding of sexuality is an ends in and of itself, which it is, but to have the pleasure-reward and at the same time not be open even to the possibility that anything like a living, breathing Being may come from it is a selfish deviation from the primary purpose of sex, is is a perversion of love itself!


Wow so because people enjoy sex it's a grand conspiracy, we are all being fooled, biology, ethics, politics cannot explain this apparently. Sorry but this author has an agenda and seems to dislike both abortion and people who enjoy sex outside of mariage. He obviously can't comprehend why some people ant sex without having children.

He seems to view sex as a sacred act, rather than the animalistic act it is essentially based in. Of course philosophy and great poetry have been written about sex so we as humans appreiciate the act for more than most animals do. However this makes it even more obvious it is far more than an act of procreation or bonding just as an reward.


Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
When entertaining this idea that sex is a recreational activity with no meaning other than a shallow intimacy and fulfillment of carnal desire, and fleshly impulses, it is not an animal that you are acting as, for the other creatures obey the natural laws and biological imperatives! The primary purpose of sexuality is procreation, and the secondary purpose, which is an ends in and of itself as well, but not without openness to life and love, is bonding or intimacy and naturally, it is profoundly rewarding, but the purpose for this reward is not for the pleasure itself, it’s to ensure that we engage in sex often to reproduce, and the bonding is good in and of itself so long as it is in love, which is necessarily complete and open to life, but it is primarily to reinforce the behavior and strengthen the bonds between mates so as to foster an environment conducive to the birth, growth, development and care giving of progeny.


I shortened the long quote because it was saying the same stuff. He dislikes the idea people can have sex outside of a relationship, not because he simply dislikes it but also because it basically undermines his entire stance. If a couple has sex, outside of a relationship, while using birth control then they do it for pleasure, nothing more or less. He can argue it's about procreation if he wishes but humans seek pleasure, that's why we have drug addicts and it could easily be argued sex has similar affects on the brain as drugs do.


Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Excerpt from "The pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy"
When it comes to food what is it called when someone seeks the secondary/corollary function/experience from eating, but at the same time is not open to the primary purpose of eating; in other words, how does on describe a glutton who lusts for the flavors and tastes, pleasure and experience of eating different foods, but at the same time refuses to receive sustenance? I’ll give you a hint, it is a disorder; this sort of person is demonstrated well by the poor soul who suffers from Bulimia, which is a dis-order, it is maladaptive, harmful, and it is clearly unnatural, or contrary to biological imperative which evolution allegedly devised.



Sorry but we're dealing i think with a religious extremist. Someone has a disorder because they seek pleasure? They are maladaptive really? This is the article you think defends your stance? Sorry but no, this author is ridiculous.
edit on 10-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Imaginary Reality do you know anything about the dopamine reward system? Do you know what the evolutionary explanation for reward mechanism in biology is? What is the purpose of these reward systems? From this perspective of biology & evolution is pleasure reward and ends in and of itself?
edit on 10-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Imaginary Reality do you know anything about the dopamine reward system? Do you know what the evolutionary explanation for reward mechanism in biology is? What is the purpose of these reward systems? From this perspective of biology & evolution is pleasure reward and ends in and of itself?
edit on 10-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)


I am well aware of the reward system involved, that is why i compared it to drug addicts, and as i said earlier, if these systems were simply about procreation or rewarding procreation then homosexuality and animals which use sex as a social reinforcement mechanism would make no sense in nature. Please feel free to check out macac (sp?) monkeys. They indulge in tons of sex, homo and hetero as a way of reinforcing their status. If sex were simply about procreation this wouldn't happen.

As i said the author of the essay you linked is using a truly simplistic explanation that does not take into account other species like macacs or the fact we are beings who seek pleasure. We subvert any system of nature that rewards us for procreation when we use birth control so the authors arguments are simply flawed in our modern age.

I would argue he is using a religious agenda that is damaging his objective opinion.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
Imaginary Reality do you know anything about the dopamine reward system? Do you know what the evolutionary explanation for reward mechanism in biology is? What is the purpose of these reward systems? From this perspective of biology & evolution is pleasure reward and ends in and of itself?


I am well aware of the reward system involved, that is why i compared it to drug addicts, and as i said earlier, if these systems were simply about procreation or rewarding procreation then homosexuality and animals which use sex as a social reinforcement mechanism would make no sense in nature. Please feel free to check out macac (sp?) monkeys. They indulge in tons of sex, homo and hetero as a way of reinforcing their status. If sex were simply about procreation this wouldn't happen.


For sake of clarity:examples of "homosexual behavior" in the animal kingdom are being offered as a counter-argument to the premise that the purpose of heterosexual sex among Human Beings is primarily reproduction, and the subject matter at hand is abortion. This digression seems especially peculiar as the ethical status of abortion is one thing that homosexuals need not concern themselves with.

First of all it is important to note that our limited interpretations based upon natural observations of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom are not by any means proof of evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. As you alluded to what we interpret and observe as "homosexual behavior" among non-Human creatures, does not always involve intercourse, and serves specific functions in the species in question (e.g. predominately for asserting dominance); is the "homosexual behavior" observed among certain species primarily pleasure-seeking in nature? Aside from the already cited example of establishing dominance, can it be said that homosexuality in the animal kingdom serves any other functions? Any peer-reviewed evidences to examine this topic would be useful, and welcome, but the onus rests squarely upon you ImaginaryReality to establish this premise.

But even if this were the case it does not in any manner undermine the demonstrable facts that the primary purpose of sexuality is reproduction, nor that the pleasure-reward of heterosexual behavior in Humans, or any Kingdom or Species of animal for that matter, is primarily to reinforce this behavior towards the primary ends/purpose. Homosexuality in Human Beings is unproductive, maladaptive, and unnatural. Otherwise establish the biological function or ends that homosexual behavior achieves among Human Beings?

Forgive me for being crude and upfront, however I must confess that I have no knowledge of how "rewarding" or "socially reinforcing" homosexuality may, or may not, be. I can say with certainty that the purpose and function of the anus relates specifically to another biological imperative, which is excrement. Sexual engagement between two member of the same sex will never result in conception, as they are anatomically and physiologically uncomplimentary. Being that homosexuality is not fruitful, as far as reproduction is concerned, it can also be said to be maladaptive, as a homosexual couple can not conceive, and consequently individuals who practice homosexuality will never procreate, and with no progeny, their unique genetic identity will never be physically perpetuated. If homosexuality among humans were strictly genetically affected than it is surprising to note that homosexuality should not only persist among men, but that it should be increasing among women!


A review of sexual behavior in the United States.
Seidman SN, Rieder RO.

Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032.

* Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Jun;152(6):961-2.

RESULTS: Most American males have intercourse by 16-17 years of age, and females do so by 17-18 years of age. The majority of young adults aged 18-24 have multiple, serial sex partners. Among adults 25-59 years old, relative monogamy appears to be the norm: 80% of heterosexually active men and 90% of heterosexually active women in this age group report having had only one sex partner in the preceding year. The average frequency of intercourse among such monogamous individuals is one to three times per week. Approximately 25% of adults have had heterosexual anal intercourse. Up to 20% of adult men report that they have had a homosexual experience; 1%-6% report such an experience during the preceding year. (abstract: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)


Not only is Homosexuality among Homo Sapiens maladaptive, but it is demonstrably unnatural, and this follows not simply from the fact that it is unproductive, but for the reasons that it is not productive. If evolutionary biology is to be accepted as an explanation for the lot of complex and diverse life then it is important to note that genetic Mutations/changes in genetic expression which are harmful and maladaptive are swiftly discarded, and these unfortunate organisms have went the way of the evolutionary dead-end. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are at the least benign may be propagated. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are beneficial result in a competitive advantage to survival which encourages their propagation into the gene pool by procreation.

The anatomy and physiology of the human reproductive systems are intricate, complex, precise, and functional.To say that the sexual reproductive systems are functional really means that they are efficacious(capable) in producing some desired result. All of the various mechanisms, apparatus, processes, and functions of the sexual reproductive systems in Human Beings are directed towards the same desired result. The result of the intricacy, complexity, precision, and functionality of sexual reproductive systems is the conception of a unique genetic recombinant which is autonomous (directs its own function), efficacious(in its primary ends of surviving), and alive(healthy cellular division, growth&development)! Normal sexual function results in a desired effect(biologically speaking) of reproduction, and propagation of the genes of the progenitors. Thus it can be said that objectively speaking the primary purpose of sexuality is reproduction and propagation of genes.

The anatomy and physiology of individual Homo Sapiens is gender specific (normally). Male and female contributions of genetic material are necessary for conception to occur, and their respective physiological anatomy is complimentary to this ends. Arousal is necessary for penetration, and penetration is necessary for exchange of genetic material, this exchange of genetic material is intercourse, and intercourse is necessary for conception. The primary purpose of Human Sexuality is demonstrably reproduction, as purpose is related to function, function is directly derived from the effect that is achieved. In the natural realm of things (precluding genetic engineering/manipulation and in-vitro fertilization for the sake of simplicity) the effect that is achieved from sexual function is conception and reproduction. Survival and reproduction are biological imperatives, and this is self evident.

Evolutionary biologists describe the development of pleasure-reward as a novel means to behaviorally reinforce and encourage acts which will fulfill primal/base instincts and urges, to ensure that our limited time and energy would be prioritized according to needs, and so that these biological imperatives do not go unmet.In the same way that food is pleasurable and satisfying to ensure that we eat, and that water is refreshing to ensure hydration, it is the case that the pleasure-reward of sexuality is to encourage reproduction, and reinforce sexual behavior. The bonding aspect of Human Sexuality is not an ends in an of itself says the evolutionary biologist, but is directed primarily to fostering an environment conducive to the thriving and development of progeny, and mutual survival.

Being that the processes of natural selection efficiently purges maladaptive mutations, as well as many benign mutations (as can be determined, generally speaking, by the efficacy and efficiency of biological anatomical structures and physiological processes in accomplishing their desired, and necessary, end), let us reconsider the peculiar instance of homosexuality in this light. Homosexuality involves an act between two genetically unique individuals of the same sex, and thus inherently precludes the possibility of propagating genes by reproduction. If reproduction is a biological imperative then it follows that homosexuality is counter to the biological imperative of reproduction. If some mutation or genetic expression is contrary to biological imperatives, then is that not precisely what is meant by maladaptive?

Finally the natural kingdom of beats is replete with examples of cannibalism and infanticide. Simply because some species behave in some, which is generally speaking-specifically directed toward survival in these species, does it mean that Human Beings ought behave in kind? The needs, behaviors, anatomical physiology, and ideal environments of the various species differ, but what is categorically true amongst them all, is survival and reproduction, or adherence to biological imperatives in other words. Being Human we are endowed with capacity for rational thought, foresight, and free-will. If an autonomous sentient Being freely directs its will towards actions which are maladaptive, counter-productive, or towards ends which are disordered, is this not the same as a deviation from the biological imperative of survival and propagation of genes? With this is mind, for a Human to freely choose to engage in homosexual behavior, which is maladaptive and counter-productive, and disordered(sex for pleasure without openness to life), is thus demonstrated as unnatural.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I would argue he is using a religious agenda that is damaging his objective opinion.


My agenda is the pursuit of truth and wisdom. What is yours? While I hold certain religious beliefs, and for very good reason might I add, is it the case that I have brought my religious convictions into the argument, or have you? My position on the topic of abortion, and the various arguments which I have put forth, are all founded upon premises of scientifically accepted facts, or legal definitions, and have done my best to present these premises with such logic that it can be said these arguments are sound, and valid, so in what way precisely have they lacked in objectivity?
edit on 11-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Edited because it posted incomplete by mistake, full reply coming soon.

My apologies to mrphilosophias for the delay.
edit on 11-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




Not only is Homosexuality among Homo Sapiens maladaptive, but it is demonstrably unnatural, and this follows not simply from the fact that it is unproductive, but for the reasons that it is not productive. If evolutionary biology is to be accepted as an explanation for the lot of complex and diverse life then it is important to note that genetic Mutations/changes in genetic expression which are harmful and maladaptive are swiftly discarded, and these unfortunate organisms have went the way of the evolutionary dead-end. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are at the least benign may be propagated. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are beneficial result in a competitive advantage to survival which encourages their propagation into the gene pool by procreation.



So why is not homosexuality "swiftly discarded" then? Maybe because its not so "harmful and maladaptive" as you claim? Maybe its neutral, or sometimes even beneficial for the species as a whole in some way?

btw. claiming it is unnatural is nonsense, it was not designed by man, but appears in nature, so its by definition natural.
edit on 11/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




Not only is Homosexuality among Homo Sapiens maladaptive, but it is demonstrably unnatural, and this follows not simply from the fact that it is unproductive, but for the reasons that it is not productive. If evolutionary biology is to be accepted as an explanation for the lot of complex and diverse life then it is important to note that genetic Mutations/changes in genetic expression which are harmful and maladaptive are swiftly discarded, and these unfortunate organisms have went the way of the evolutionary dead-end. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are at the least benign may be propagated. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are beneficial result in a competitive advantage to survival which encourages their propagation into the gene pool by procreation.



Originally posted by Maslo

So why is not homosexuality "swiftly discarded" then? Maybe because its not so "harmful and maladaptive" as you claim? Maybe its neutral, or sometimes even beneficial for the species as a whole in some way?


I actually alluded to the answer in the previous paragraph (before the citation):

Originally Posted by mrphilosophias
Sexual engagement between two member of the same sex will never result in conception, as they are anatomically and physiologically uncomplimentary. Being that homosexuality is not fruitful, as far as reproduction is concerned, it can also be said to be maladaptive, as a homosexual couple can not conceive, and consequently individuals who practice homosexuality will never procreate, and with no progeny, their unique genetic identity will never be physically perpetuated. If homosexuality among humans were strictly genetically affected than it is surprising to note that homosexuality should not only persist among men, but that it should be increasing among women!


What it being implied here is that if homosexuality is strictly genetic expression then it is unlikely to be propagated in the genetic pool, as a homosexual couple can not conceive, and their genes can not be passed down. In light of the rising trends in homosexual identification found in Western Culture today, it is unlikely that homosexuality is primarily affected, or caused, by genetic sequence, which points to some other cause. If this is the case then it is not a matter of homosexuality going the way of the evolutionary dead-end, as it would be a choice, left to the making of individuals, who are impressed upon with the mores, values, traditions, and taboos of their sociocultural environment. If this is the case then perhaps it is time to demand that mass media, and other mechanisms of mind manipulation, simply stop propagating these insidious notions. For whatever reason there are forces at work that are hellbent on introducing, encouraging, and glamorizing homosexuality, and have labored to portrary homosexuality as note only acceptable, but for those drawn to it, even desireable.

The line between nature and nurture has certainly been blurred by relatively recent discoveries of retrotransposons, or jumping genes, which suggests that our environment/experiences intimately helps shape who we are, by means of genetic expression. Is it possible that our culture might have something to do with these rising trends in adolescents and young adults who engage in homosexual behavior?

I also have a sort of elementary psychodynamic model of how it might happen, which I hope to one day be able to research more in depth; pardon the digression but it is just an example how homosexuality could be explained by environmental, social and cognitive forces, as opposed to genetic traits:

First I would like to investigate any possible correlation between childhood abuse and homosexuality by means of longitudinal case study. If such a correlation can be established then it would call for more in depth research as to how exactly childhood abuse is correlated to sexual orientation. These are only a few hypothesized explanations to describe precisely how childhood abuse could be related to adolescent homosexual self-identification and orientation:

scenerio 1: A young boy is forcibly sexually molested by an older man. Arousal is the bodies natural response to genital stimulation. The young boy becomes aroused, and experiences physical pleasure, but it has him confused, because it is not something that he wants, it is a violation of his privacy, but it is new and stimulating/exciting at the same time, and the older man is inherently perceived as authoritative. The very nature of this scenerio is enough to leave a lasting dissonant impression in the ignorant young boys mind. The dissonance and confusion caused by this situation will linger in the young boys mind into his adolescent stage where he may begin to ask himself, or even blame himself, for being aroused and experiencing pleasure-reward from a man who violated him. When introduced to the idea of homosexuality the teenage boy will inevitably consider this possibility in an attempt to make sense of this confusion and cognitive dissonance. All the while the teenage boy is being bombarded with subtle, yet powerful, social reinforcement cues from mass media and pop culture, which constantly bombards us with digital stimulation in the forms of erotic images and sounds. This predatory marketting naturally enflames the libido which only adds fuel to the fire. In the end, perhaps after experimenting, and refusing to accept what happened to him as a child and coping, this young man will accept that this is who he is, and assumes the identity of a gay man.

scenerio 2: The same scenerio as above but with a young girl, and an older woman.

scenerio 3: A young girl has a very abusive Father who holds the girl accountable for her Mothers death when she was 7. This is a sad pathetic man who has degenerated into an angry alcoholic in a slippery descent that began as a means to avoid accepting the death of his most beloved wife. The young girls Mother was exceptionally loving and nurturing, and they were a happy family before she died. The drinking, and abuse get progressively worse as the young girl gets older, and she finds herself as a teenager in several similar sorts of abusive relationships. The aversive effect on the adolescent girls mind from years of repetitive abuse from the male archetypes in her life lead her to decide that men are scum. The girl finds comfort from a girlfriend of hers as they share powerful moments of emotional and personal intimacy. Then introduced to the idea of lesbianism, which is glamorized in western culture, and applauded by the boys, as they perceive to be expected from boys (as learned from culture and social reinforcement, but also is the result of surging hormones) who don't yet know that one woman is more than a handful, and this positive attention from the boys, this girl decides to do what she has no doubt been primed to consder, and the power physical intimacy of the embrace coupled with their intimate relationship could be enough for her to accept this offered identity of homosexual. (This is a call to us men to start treating women with more respect and love.)

scenerio 4: same as above but with a young boy, and some other minor variances in psychodynamic and cognitive molding.


Originally posted by Maslo
Maybe because its not so "harmful and maladaptive" as you claim?


I have already taken the time to prove how homosexuality is disordered, unproductive, and maladaptive. I never used the word harmful, so please don't put words in my mouth. However, with some time it could be possible to show some of the more harmful far reaching unintended consequences of acceptance and propagation of homosexuality, but the greatest harm is to the soul, as many who later suffer from homosexuality well know. This is where I proved homosexuality to be disordered, unproductive, maladaptive, and unnatural:


Originally Posted by mrphilosophias
Not only is Homosexuality among Homo Sapiens maladaptive, but it is demonstrably unnatural, and this follows not simply from the fact that it is unproductive, but for the reasons that it is not productive. If evolutionary biology is to be accepted as an explanation for the lot of complex and diverse life then it is important to note that genetic Mutations/changes in genetic expression which are harmful and maladaptive are swiftly discarded, and these unfortunate organisms have went the way of the evolutionary dead-end. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are at the least benign may be propagated. Genetic mutations/changes in genetic expression which are beneficial result in a competitive advantage to survival which encourages their propagation into the gene pool by procreation.

The anatomy and physiology of the human reproductive systems are intricate, complex, precise, and functional.To say that the sexual reproductive systems are functional really means that they are efficacious(capable) in producing some desired result. All of the various mechanisms, apparatus, processes, and functions of the sexual reproductive systems in Human Beings are directed towards the same desired result. The result of the intricacy, complexity, precision, and functionality of sexual reproductive systems is the conception of a unique genetic recombinant which is autonomous (directs its own function), efficacious(in its primary ends of surviving), and alive(healthy cellular division, growth&development)! Normal sexual function results in a desired effect(biologically speaking) of reproduction, and propagation of the genes of the progenitors. Thus it can be said that objectively speaking the primary purpose of sexuality is reproduction and propagation of genes.

The anatomy and physiology of individual Homo Sapiens is gender specific (normally). Male and female contributions of genetic material are necessary for conception to occur, and their respective physiological anatomy is complimentary to this ends. Arousal is necessary for penetration, and penetration is necessary for exchange of genetic material, this exchange of genetic material is intercourse, and intercourse is necessary for conception. The primary purpose of Human Sexuality is demonstrably reproduction, as purpose is related to function, function is directly derived from the effect that is achieved. In the natural realm of things (precluding genetic engineering/manipulation and in-vitro fertilization for the sake of simplicity) the effect that is achieved from sexual function is conception and reproduction. Survival and reproduction are biological imperatives, and this is self evident.

Evolutionary biologists describe the development of pleasure-reward as a novel means to behaviorally reinforce and encourage acts which will fulfill primal/base instincts and urges, to ensure that our limited time and energy would be prioritized according to needs, and so that these biological imperatives do not go unmet.In the same way that food is pleasurable and satisfying to ensure that we eat, and that water is refreshing to ensure hydration, it is the case that the pleasure-reward of sexuality is to encourage reproduction, and reinforce sexual behavior. The bonding aspect of Human Sexuality is not an ends in an of itself says the evolutionary biologist, but is directed primarily to fostering an environment conducive to the thriving and development of progeny, and mutual survival.

Being that the processes of natural selection efficiently purges maladaptive mutations, as well as many benign mutations (as can be determined, generally speaking, by the efficacy and efficiency of biological anatomical structures and physiological processes in accomplishing their desired, and necessary, end), let us reconsider the peculiar instance of homosexuality in this light. Homosexuality involves an act between two genetically unique individuals of the same sex, and thus inherently precludes the possibility of propagating genes by reproduction. If reproduction is a biological imperative then it follows that homosexuality is counter to the biological imperative of reproduction. If some mutation or genetic expression is contrary to biological imperatives, then is that not precisely what is meant by maladaptive?



Originally Posted by Maslo
Maybe its neutral, or sometimes even beneficial for the species as a whole in some way?

Care to take the time to establish, and elaborate upon, these ambiguous postulates?


Originally Posted by Maslo
btw. claiming it is unnatural is nonsense, it was not designed by man, but appears in nature, so its by definition natural.


Again I have already taken the time to establish my premises, so please deal with this:

Originally Posted by mrphilosophias

Finally the natural kingdom of beats is replete with examples of cannibalism and infanticide. Simply because some species behave in some, which is generally speaking-specifically directed toward survival in these species, does it mean that Human Beings ought behave in kind? The needs, behaviors, anatomical physiology, and ideal environments of the various species differ, but what is categorically true amongst them all, is survival and reproduction, or adherence to biological imperatives in other words. Being Human we are endowed with capacity for rational thought, foresight, and free-will. If an autonomous sentient Being freely directs its will towards actions which are maladaptive, counter-productive, or towards ends which are disordered, is this not the same as a deviation from the biological imperative of survival and propagation of genes? With this is mind, for a Human to freely choose to engage in homosexual behavior, which is maladaptive and counter-productive, and disordered(sex for pleasure without openness to life), is thus demonstrated as unnatural.

Don't waste my time by attempting to undermine these arguments with one liners and vitriolic rhetoric. So help me God I will spend my life fighting these ideas, so a few minutes to deal with unsubstantial challenges like these is nothing; do yourself a favor and take the time to compose a formidable response. I look forward to it.
edit on 11-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Arguing that homosexuality is unproductive, maladaptive, or unnatural is definitely an opinion counter to current scientific knowledge...

Homosexuality has existed in humans since recorded history. If it was maladaptive, it wouldn't exist after so long. If it was unnatural, it wouldn't occur in almost every species on the planet. Productivity is measured more than just in producing offspring. You could be culturally productive, or physically productive, or emotionally productive. If the majority of the population were homosexual, you might have an argument in regards to counterproductive to the species, but it's not, so it's a moot point.

Just come out and say that homosexuality isn't for you and leave it at that. Religion isn't for me, but I don't berate religion unless it's attacking someone's rights. Homosexuality isn't for me, but I won't begrudge someone something that makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone else, just like religion.

I'm always amazed at how many people need to vilify something in order to disagree with it. Why can't people disagree with something and just leave it at that?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
Arguing that homosexuality is unproductive, maladaptive, or unnatural is definitely an opinion counter to current scientific knowledge...


Is that the case? Then I shall ask you the question; for what function/purpose does homosexuality achieve? The function/purpose that homosexuality doesn't achieve is self-evident; it does not achieve conception, propagation of genetic material, and reproduction. Is it clear then that homosexuality is not fruitful? Biological imperatives don't conveniently change to suit your arguments, so it should also be clear, and accepted as self-evident, that because homosexuality categorically excludes reproduction and propagation of genes, that it is also maladaptive. Lastly it should be clear that the purpose of sexual intercourse is primarily for reproduction, and the pleasure-reward derived from it is to reinforce and encourage the behavior; but why? Is it for the pleasure and intimacy alone, or is it first and foremost to ensure the continuation of our species, and to propagate our genetic legacy? The purpose of something is inextricably connected to its function, or the ends that it achieves in other words. Naturally the purpose of sexual intercourse is primarily reproduction, but because homosexuality categorically excludes reproduction, it is accurate to say that it is unnatural.


Originally posted by grahag

Homosexuality has existed in humans since recorded history. If it was maladaptive, it wouldn't exist after so long.


So has ritual human sacrifice, is that maladaptive? The open and wide spread acceptance and practice of homosexual relations is one of the last pillars of morality to rot before empires collapse, at least historically speaking.


Originally posted by grahag
If it was unnatural, it wouldn't occur in almost every species on the planet.


Care to provide a citation for this unfounded premise?


Originally posted by grahag
Productivity is measured more than just in producing offspring. You could be culturally productive, or physically productive, or emotionally productive. If the majority of the population were homosexual, you might have an argument in regards to counterproductive to the species, but it's not, so it's a moot point.


reProduction and survival are your most base instincts, which is fitting, as they are biological imperatives! Is homosexuality culturally productive? It may be productive for an adversary of some culture, as the widespread disintegration of the moral character of a nation precedes collapse, as a building on a rotten foundation, its integrity has been jeopardized. I have established that it is not physically productive. And even though I find the idea of something being emotionally productive as shaky at first glance, it is only logical to ask-what good will homosexually induced emotions do for the world, or your biological legacy, after you die?


Originally posted by grahag
Just come out and say that homosexuality isn't for you and leave it at that. Religion isn't for me, but I don't berate religion unless it's attacking someone's rights. Homosexuality isn't for me, but I won't begrudge someone something that makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone else, just like religion. I'm always amazed at how many people need to vilify something in order to disagree with it. Why can't people disagree with something and just leave it at that?


Well actually I didn't bring up homosexuality, that was ImaginaryReality, this entire debate is really about abortion, but ImaginaryReality tried to argue that prevalence of "homosexual behavior" in the animal kingdom (Japanese Macaques particularly) is proof that sex is not primarily for reproduction. Feel free to read the exchange and get caught up with where we are at.
edit on 11-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join