A Rebellious People

[Simon Moon]

Duplicate post.

[Authari]

In nature animals mainly only have sex to procreate (sure you get the odd walrus trying to have sex with a penguin but we're not talking about extraordinary cases here), the act of coitus is itself the act of procreation, ergo having sex is indeed a willing invitation to get pregnant because it is the act of procreation for which all intents and purposes animals solely engage in to produce offspring. As far as loaded language goes really you're going to nark on me for my polite word choices in the face of such hostility from the community here who took the opportunity not to have a fruitful conversation but instead rail against me personally, of course I take it with stride, there's nothing I love more than ruffling the feathers of atheists.

A mother and a father have an obligation to care for their children, a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her, through the act of procreation she already gave her consent for life to dwell within her she knew the consequences that would arise from a union with a man she was not married to, and no surprise men who aren't married to you often don't want to take responsibility for the child they helped produce therefore it is the Male Patriarchal Society that tries to convince women who are the only ones who can create life, that this gift that has been given to her, the gift of life, should be instead ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe. But that's humane... and loving... isn't it? right? To rip asunder that child limb from limb while it kicks in its mother's womb.

A mother has an obligation to care for her children, its not that 'another person has no right to live inside another person without their consent' its a mother has an obligation to her children. These are the values we set for ourselves as a society, we expect women to mature into loving mothers. Tell me how a woman is going to feel attached to her children after having three of them aborted because she didn't want them? Seems to me that she would have less attachment to her children than the mother that did not have an abortion done to her. By advocating for abortion you are advocating for the mother to take the life of her own children, how does that build a warm fuzzy feeling for her children after seeing the remains of her dead son or daughter in a glass tube dismembered and disemboweled? The Parent has a DUTY to their children, and that duty begins the moment they were conceived, for our society was structured in such a way that if done properly children are only conceived in the marital bed of a husband and wife. Just because someone wanted to 'express' themselves for a moment of passion, does not mean they get to rid themselves of the consequences of an act that should remain between a husband and a wife. They practiced their 'bodily autonomy' and that's fine, but as you have said, somebody is living inside of her, which means that body belongs to someone that is not the mother, and so draws to the sad conclusion for you that her 'autonomy' does not extend to the life of her unborn child, who as we have shown multiple times has its own cognizance and is capable of feeling fear and love.

Would you disagree and say that a mother and father do not have an obligation to their children?

Bold portion mine.

This is absolutely not true.

The Amazon river dolphin or boto has been reported to form up in bands of 3–5 individuals engaging in sexual activity. The groups usually comprise young males and sometimes one or two females.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American bison.

More than 20 species of bat have been documented to engage in homosexual behavior.

African and Asian male elephants will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general herd, often form "companionships", consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger males with sexual behavior being an important part of the social dynamic.

Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling. In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males.

Ovis aries (sheep) has attracted much attention due to the fact that around 8–10% of rams have an exclusive homosexual orientation. Such rams prefer to court and mount other rams only, even in the presence of estrous ewes. Moreover, around 18–22% of rams are bisexual.

This is just a small list of non reproduction type is sex in the natural world. Lions, giraffes, Orangutans, gorillas, bats, penguins, polecats, are a few more.

And, as someone else mentioned, bonobo chimps (our closest cousins), are quite active in various non reproductive sexual activities.

So, if you are so utterly wrong about this, just think about all the other things you are wrong about.

i see you went with the odd cases of walruses having sex with penguins, preferring the extraordinary cases to the ordinary, indeed you will find I don't deny that these things happen, just that it is by and large in the animal kingdom the norm for sex to be purely an act of procreation.

However having said that, in your pursuit to look up the extraordinary cases and compile them in a list to try to debunk my post, you also willfully departed from any intention in countering the rest of the post, so now all you've done is try to disprove one thing to disprove everything, which an admirable attempt I must say, but you still disregarded the main fact here. Sex is meant to be an act of procreation, trying to deny such is like trying to deny your own humanity. So you haven't disproven anything, all you've made abundantly clear is that some animals prefer homosexual behavior, which I'm glad you're so open-minded about the right for giraffes to love who they want to and that you support their 'sexual freedom' but you can not seem to offer any empathy at all for the human infant that still dwells within the womb. Your love for animals over humans is detestable, to say the least.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what if sex is meant to be some natural thing? You don't give a fuck about what's natural. Correct me if I'm stepping out of line...but you probably think that a bunch of natural things are "ungodly". No?

Are you a snitch, a goon, or a butcher?

[Deesse23]

i see you went with the odd cases of walruses having sex with penguins, preferring the extraordinary cases to the ordinary, indeed you will find I don't deny that these things happen, just that it is by and large in the animal kingdom the norm for sex to be purely an act of procreation.

Nope
Bonobos, mainly and purely have sex for other reasons than to procreate. Or is the entirety of Bonobos "Walruses and Penguins".

[Foxaèr]

If sex was for the mere purpose of procreation, there would not exist the anomaly of infertility for those who strictly adhere to such an uncompromising perspective of the act.

[Deesse23]

If sex was for the mere purpose of procreation, there would not exist the anomaly of infertility for those who strictly adhere to such an uncompromising perspective of the act.

He is applying the naturalistic fallacy, and not even properly.

"Most animals have sex exclusively to procreate. Well maybe 80%. Well except for those who are closest related to us. They have sex mostly NOT for procreation. But tall the other do!!...most of em...ya know...."

Yes the sun is always up, except for when its not.

[Fake Messiah]

It is obvious that natural is whatever Authari decides is natural and not what happens in nature.

[Foxaèr]

Nature isn't natural. It's just nature.

Natural and unnatural are mere human concepts to bring about an understanding of order where there is none.

[Belacqua]

Sex is meant to be an act of procreation

I think there's no doubt that sex evolved as a means of procreating, and giving our genes the best chance of surviving. So in that sense I agree that it's "meant to" be that way. 

One interesting thing about human culture, though, is that a lot of the things we evolved to do have been put to uses which aren't evolutionarily advantageous. The things we evolved to do lead us to play and enjoy ourselves and enrich our lives over and above genetic survival.

So one example is that we evolved to run and jump and be generally agile. That's useful if you want to escape a sabertooth tiger. But those abilities have, thanks to our culture, been put to use in things like ballet. I don't think there is any evolutionary advantage to ballet; it is only an enrichment of culture and a pleasure due to its beauty. We're glad we are able to use our evolved traits for reasons other than what they evolved for. 

We evolved to be good at pattern recognition and the discernment of subtle color variations. These are good for survival. The same physical abilities make the visual arts possible. The subtlety of our visual perception isn't "meant to" be moved by a great painting, but we have managed to develop that pleasure anyway. And I think we can all agree that the human world would be poorer without employing our abilities in ways we weren't "meant to" use them. 

The word "aesthetics" refers to all the senses -- the opposite is "anesthetics." So I think that the pleasures of sex are analogous to the pleasures of the arts. And like all the arts, it is more than mere sensory pleasure, in that it draws us closer to others, lets us understand people unlike ourselves, and just generally makes life better.

[The Architect Of Fate]

i see you went with the odd cases of walruses having sex with penguins, preferring the extraordinary cases to the ordinary, indeed you will find I don't deny that these things happen, just that it is by and large in the animal kingdom the norm for sex to be purely an act of procreation.

What's ordinary is not prescriptive and the fact there are exceptions blows your whole point away. There are animals that have sex for pleasure not procreation...Therefore even in your own fallacy, you are wrong. 

However having said that, in your pursuit to look up the extraordinary cases and compile them in a list to try to debunk my post,

Its mere existence debunks your post. Your post debunks your post as your post is built on a fallacy. 

you also willfully departed from any intention in countering the rest of the post, so now all you've done is try to disprove one thing to disprove everything,

Nope, the mere existence of that one thing debunks. Your whole argument is invalid to begin with because again it's built on a fallacy. 

which an admirable attempt I must say, but you still disregarded the main fact here. 

Nope, the main fact here is Animals have sex for a reason procreation but even if they did you can't draw an ought from that. This is a critical failure of your whole argument. 

Sex is meant to be an act of procreation,

Nope, plenty of animals have sex for pleasure so sex depends on species and nothing binds humans to this rule as it's clear humans have sex for pleasure so this point alone blows your whole fallacious argument out the window. 

 trying to deny such is like trying to deny your own humanity.

Nope, it's embracing the fact humans are not confined to our basic instincts and can utilize sex for other purposes and do. This isn't a denial of humanity it's part of humanity. Your attempts to confine humanity by the naturalistic fallacy that's denying humanity. 

 So you haven't disproven anything,

Actually, he proved all he needed to prove all you do is engage in a fallacious line of reasoning 

 all you've made abundantly clear is that some animals prefer homosexual behavior,

No, what he made clear is not all sex is procreational. That alone blows your argument away and the fact your argument is a fallacy just blows it further.

 which I'm glad you're so open-minded about the right for giraffes to love who they want to and that you support their 'sexual freedom'

Yup 

but you can not seem to offer any empathy at all for the human infant that still dwells within the womb.

There is again no reason the fetus's mere existence overrides a woman's autonomy or sexual freedom.

 Your love for animals over humans is detestable, to say the least.

Nope, his love for sexual freedom and the autonomy of women is awesome it's your beliefs that are detestable. 


Just because other animals have sex to reproduce does not mean sex ought only to be about reproduction and that having sex ought to be regarded as an invitation to be pregnant and that she ought not to be allowed to remove the fetus. Appealing to the behavior of other animals will not get you prescriptions on any of these issues.