If there is such a thing as "unnatural" it is expecting humans to needlessly give up gratification of any non-vital human
appetites.

Our vital appetites are for air, water, food, sleep.

Our non-vital appetites are far more numerous...the need to laugh, the need to cry, the need to play,
the need to daydream, the need to create, the need to speak, the need to sing, the need to dance, the need to get outside,
the need for challenges, the need for solace, the need for friendship, the need to love, etc.

If you were deprive a human of any of these non-vital needs for moral reasons, you would be, at best,
unkind and foolish.

Why is sex any different?

No, it is not a vital function...you can live without it, just like you can live without your gall bladder,
or with one kidney, or even one lung, if you must.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a function...and more than one function, at that.

Take the female clitoris.  It's not like a penis, it doesn't serve a vital role in reproduction.
It's only purpose, as far as researchers have been able to ascertain, is pleasure.
(which is probably why Islam has such a problem with it)

Sex also serves a social purpose;

Rocket already posted an excellent link about how sex has been observed to serve various purposes,
in studies of Bonobo primates,

and I don't think I need to go into detail about how profoundly human psychology is linked to sexuality,
or how we are social animals and sexuality is woven into most aspects of our society;

As to monogamy, there's nothing wrong with it, as long as the needs of both parties are being met.

And when I say "needs", I don't mean what someone else thinks your needs SHOULD be

I mean whatever your needs actually are.

There are monogamous couples that are perfectly happy.

There are many who are not.

And people, especially religious people,
are far too quick to lay blame when someone is not happy with their monogamous sex life:

" You married the wrong person "

" you're too hard to please, you should be content with what you have "

" you need to work harder in your marriage"

(September 30, 2015 at 9:31 am)dyresand Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:21 am)Randy Carson Wrote: And 40+ million aborted babies.

So much for our improved morality.

Women have right's get over it and besides you are a man were both guys we cannot dictate to women what to do with their bodies. 
That being said they have every right to get a abortion.

What about the rights of unborn women?

(October 1, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:31 am)dyresand Wrote: Women have right's get over it and besides you are a man were both guys we cannot dictate to women what to do with their bodies. 
That being said they have every right to get a abortion.

What about the rights of unborn women?

Abortion has been around forever and most historians agree that it (and undeniably infanticide) was practiced to a much higher degree during the christian dominated middle ages. So even if you accepted abortion as a moral wrong (I think it's a moral good) you'd still have to say we have better morals today. Also Catholic countries, like say all of Latin America, have a much much higher abortion rate than the secular world.

(October 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yes, I'm curious to hear the explanation by the celibacy and blood-god cult member explain to me why a civilized person must be abstinent or else reproduce. It's like saying, "You voluntarily ate that food. You know that food-borne illnesses can happen, and so you volunteered to die of ptomaine poisoning. If you didn't want ptomaine poisoning, you should have remained hungry."

Must be abstinent?

No, rocket. God created the infertile phases of a woman's cycle for a reason.

This thread has moved full circle.

That's what it started it out like.



And that's what it turned into.



In between it was one of the more interesting ones.

(October 1, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:31 am)dyresand Wrote: Women have right's get over it and besides you are a man were both guys we cannot dictate to women what to do with their bodies. 
That being said they have every right to get a abortion.

What about the rights of unborn women?

My two cents on abortion:

I am Pro-Choice.

However, I am not without reservations about it.

I found out someone close to me had an abortion.

I wasn't meant to find out, and I wish I hadn't.
The knowledge was thrust upon me.

I know this woman was mature and healthy, and had the means to raise a child;
and it is very probable that she used contraception, and it just didn't work.

I am disappointed in her, that she chose not to have and raise the baby,
since I know she could probably could have done so.

From where I stood,

it seemed to be a case
of her allowing her inconvenience to trump that child's chance at life.

However, I am not in her shoes,
and I don't know all the details.

If I did, my opinion might, or might not change.

The point is, I am not her, and I cannot make her decision for her.

If I, personally, was to become pregnant now, at this stage of my life,

- even if it was from a one-night-stand,
- even if I had been on the Pill and had used other means of contraception as well,
- even though I have never wanted to be a mother,
- even though it would not be easy,
- and even though I am Pro-Choice

....I would choose try to deliver a healthy baby and raise it to the best of my ability.

But here's the thing:

What I choose for myself might not be the right choice for someone else.

The factors are countless and varied.

Is abortion sometimes abused...wrongly employed as a means of birth control?  Yes.

Is abortion, in other cases, the only logical and humane solution?  Yes.

Are there females who regret having abortions?  Yes.

Are there females who regret NOT having abortions?  Yes.

THERE WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION THAT IS 100% IDEAL.

Therefore,

the bottom line, for me, is this:

I can't make choices for other people,
and I don't think a judge or a committee or a politician or a religious leader
should be entitled to make this choice for people, either.  Even for a minor.

you can and should educate,
you can and should counsel,

...but she has to make the decision for herself,
and it's not a decision she wants to make.

We have the technology to successfully perform abortions in a clinical environment.

Making this technology unavailable to women is not going to remove the problem,
and it will increase other problems.

It is unnatural, yes...but so what?  That is no argument.
Everything mankind does, is unnatural.

For me, because of these factors,
despite that it will never be 100% satisfactory,
it is a decision that must be left to the mother.

The technology, education, counseling, support, and privacy
must be made available to ALL women,
because all their cases are different,
and it is not something any of us are qualified to pass judgment upon.

and the rest of the world is just going to have to accept
that abortion falls into its own category of human rights,
and it is the mother's decision, alone,
and it is she who must live with that decision.


I, myself, am not 100% happy with this reality.

but I see that it is the lesser of all the evils,

and no solution is going to be ideal.

(October 1, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yes, I'm curious to hear the explanation by the celibacy and blood-god cult member explain to me why a civilized person must be abstinent or else reproduce. It's like saying, "You voluntarily ate that food. You know that food-borne illnesses can happen, and so you volunteered to die of ptomaine poisoning. If you didn't want ptomaine poisoning, you should have remained hungry."

Must be abstinent?

No, rocket. God created the infertile phases of a woman's cycle for a reason.

THAT MENTALITY IS HOW ABORTION ENDED UP BEING NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOLY FUCK

Glad you answered that one, MTL, because I sure wasn't going to... and I do my best not to pass up any argument presented to me as "unworthy" of reply. But that one was just toooo much!

(October 1, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:31 am)dyresand Wrote: Women have right's get over it and besides you are a man were both guys we cannot dictate to women what to do with their bodies. 
That being said they have every right to get a abortion.

What about the rights of unborn women?

There's no such thing as an unborn woman. No, Randy, none of the figments of your imagination have rights.

(October 1, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yes, I'm curious to hear the explanation by the celibacy and blood-god cult member explain to me why a civilized person must be abstinent or else reproduce. It's like saying, "You voluntarily ate that food. You know that food-borne illnesses can happen, and so you volunteered to die of ptomaine poisoning. If you didn't want ptomaine poisoning, you should have remained hungry."

Must be abstinent?

No, rocket. God created the infertile phases of a woman's cycle for a reason.

Please take a fucking biology class.