I
icamhif
Guest
Deuteronomy 24:1 and Matthew 19:7-8
- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Yes, dear, I know what an ad hominem is. Your problem is that you don’t bother to actually address points made by others, but resort to name calling in a fetid attempt to mask the fact that you don’t actually address the points. Leaving the retort unaddressed and purporting that the argument is “too stupid” or “not smart” enough to address doesn’t actually demonstrate that the analogy doesn’t work. Nor does calling Russian Roulette an “idiotic game” show that the analogy is not an apt one.
Suggesting that the mere fact that Russian Roulette is “idiotic” and that anyone who would suggest the analogy is “not smart” does not refute the force of the analogy. It only implies that the “stupid” analogy was proposed by a “drooling idiot” and, therefore, the implication is that the analogy is “stupid” BECAUSE it was proposed by a drooling idiot which IS an ad hominem. The fact that you never “graced us” with an actual demonstration of why the analogy didn’t work but let the name calling “do the deed” is an ad hominem stealthily buried under a denial that it was.
I
icamhif
Guest
So then the babies are analogous to the bullets?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So your representation of a valid analogy is to compare pregnancy with accidents?
It was an “accident” that pregnancy occurred is a dubious suggestion.
First of all, the biological point of having sex is to reproduce - always has been. It isn’t an “accident” that new generations come into existence by virtue of sexual reproduction. The reproductive organs in males and females of reproduction capable species are specifically designed to create new members of the species. You didn’t know that apparently.
People who get into automobiles with the intention of getting from Point A to Point B are much more akin to a heterosexual couple who have sex to make children. Automobiles were designed to move people and goods, just as sex is designed to reproduce genetic code.
Your claim is that people can also get into cars in order to go for a joy ride, just as gendered individuals can have sex for the sheer joy.
The problem with your analogy is that the logical implication is that getting from Point A to Point B (the reason automobiles were designed in the first place) is analogous to producing offspring (the reason reproductive organs exist in nature.)
That would mean the parts of the analogy that “fit” together, break down like this:
Driving to get from Point A to Point B equates to having sex to produce offspring.
Driving for the sheer joy of it with no thought to the destination equates to “recreational sex.”
That leaves the “accidents” (unintended and unforeseen events) where individuals are maimed or killed on highways is without an analog on the reproduction side of the analogy. Except that, there is…
I submit that “abortions” do fit as the apt analog. Just as accidents involve the maiming and deaths of victims, more frequently as a direct consequence of handling automobiles recklessly or without due care and attention to where they are going, abortions involve the maiming and deaths of individuals as a direct consequence of those handling the “sex organs” without due care and attention to where they are going.
Where your analogy breaks down, however, is that accidents are unforeseen and unintended, whereas abortions are intended and could have been foreseen precisely because the point of sex (biologically speaking) is the creation of the very offspring which will be intentionally killed after they have “accidentally” been created.
To complete the analogy then, aborting children is very like drivers getting in their cars (or into each other’s pants) merely for the sake of going for a joy-ride (riding fast and loose,) thereby creating a higher frequency of deaths from the resulting “accidents” and, then, (with approval of the government) conspire to simply dispose of the resulting victims and sterilize the accident scene so that the “cost” of joy-riding, in terms of death and mayhem, is not counted in “human” lives, but merely as unavoidable “cost.”
Which is the motive behind your quibbling about the 1.337 billion deaths and counting.
Now your asking for a verifiable number - as if a difference of anything between 30 million and 1.337 billion would make any difference at all to the heinous cost of "recreational sex - just comes across as callous and cold.
Seeing as a “source” means so much to you:
numberofabortions.com
So what if the numbers are off by one hundred or two hundred million? Will THAT really make any difference?
Now the question above is an important one. What can be done?
We certainly promoting sex as “just recreational fun” is certainly not an acceptable solution since it endorses a mindset that ignores viewing sex within context and in terms of cost in human lives. It also turns those who engage in consensual sex into co-conspirators in a murder when, in order to hide the cost of their “joy-ride,” the doors are legally opened wide to killing the unintended but clearly foreseeable consequences.
The kind of “permissiveness” you are asking for is the kind that endorses and overlooks millions upon millions of casualties every year. That you can show such restraint is passing judgement on me for wondering why anyone would endorse an activity with such heinous costs in human lives under the quaint rubric of “permissiveness” causes a little shudder down my spine.
Continued…
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
…from last.
You have sought to bury my posts under a barrage of dubious and distressing epithets. Know these have been shed and left in the dust of the past.
You have sought to bury my posts under a barrage of dubious and distressing epithets. Know these have been shed and left in the dust of the past.
Proved above.
No, it isn’t the “method” at fault, it is the users of the method - whether automobiles or sex organs. It isn’t an “undesirable” outcome, it is an outcome fully desired and one which all are complicit to some degree or other. And one for which all those complicit WILL be held responsible.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No, the babies are analogous to victims. The “bullets” would seem self-evident. You have never heard the expression “shooting blanks,” apparently.So then the babies are analogous to the bullets?
I
icamhif
Guest
Okie Dokie
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
The purpose of a Russian roulette “game” is to kill or be killed (depending on where the gun is pointed). To compare that to seeking joy by having recreational sex is definitely nonsense (for lack of a much stronger word).
Not exactly. An unwanted pregnancy IS an accident.
The error (or rather imprecision) of the analogy is that in (sexual) reality only a very small percent of the rides is aimed at getting from A to B, and rest of the rides is a “joy-ride”. When practicing NFP, even the most orthodox couples are attempting to have a “joy-ride”. They also try to enjoy the “fun part” without the accident of conception.
Wrong again, they don’t. The analogy is that abortions are surgical procedures (surprise, surprise!) which are aimed at eliminating the result of the accident - unwanted pregnancy. Of course there are other methods, like the “morning after pill”, which do not include any surgical intrusion. Their effect is to flush the zygote from the woman’s system, an event you found perfectly acceptable.
It is also very telling that you try to drag in “abortions” as a reason to scoff at the joy-rides. But you would be against having joy-rides, even when there are absolutely NO chances of accidents (unwanted pregnancies). So your attempt to drag in abortions is just a red herring. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring (“A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.”)
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Apparently, since you are unable to understand the point of analogies - that analogies are “distasteful” isn’t what renders them untrue.The fact that you compare recreational sex to Russian roulette tells us everything about your level of irrationality.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, waving menacing sounding drivel in front of you isn’t sufficient to ward off the truth nor is it effective in keeping those interested in the truth from actually parsing out your words and supposed “arguments.”
Let’s explore how Russian roulette is analogous to recreational sex, leaving aside for a moment the fact that you don’t like the analogy. Recall that your not liking something is insufficient to make it untrue. That was a basic rule of rationality (at least back in the days when philosophy instructors weren’t concerned with such inane ideas as “triggering” or micro-aggression.)
So break out the smelling salts, princess…
A gun is designed to kill things, just like sex organs are designed to put “life” into things. The analogy is a negative one. That is the entire purpose of each. The male sex organ has euphemistically been referred to as a gun firing live bullets or blanks - apparently, the analogy is a commonly understood one.
Seeing as the purpose of each is quite clear, the question is whether any other uses for guns or sex organs exist. You claim sex organs can be used for “recreational sex.” Just as legitimately, some claim guns can be used for a game called Russian roulette.
(Again, the fact you don’t like the analogy does not make it less than one. And the fact that it is proposed by a “driveling idiot” does not falsify it - despite your insistence that only driveling idiots would suggest it - which STILL amounts to an ad hominem since you haven’t shown the analogy to be false, merely implied that it MUST be because only driveling idiots would suggest it.)
Since firing “live” ammunition is ultimately the raison d’être for each activity, purveyors of “game theory” have turned the firing of the “gun” in each case into a game of chance. The Russian roulettists by loading blanks into the gun, the “recreational sex” proponents by reducing the “chance” of live ammunition meeting its target by various means - call these ‘artificial birth control.’ Both are still NOT without risk.
The consequences of not successfully meeting the challenge of the game is that death results in Russian roulette and life results in the “game” of recreational sex. However, with the advent of abortion and abortifacients, the end result is that the consequences of both Russian Roulette and recreational sex are now identical: the “death” of someone.
In the case of Russian roulette, the death was to be anticipated as a “possibility” for one of the two players who consented to play in the first place. You see, the game was consensual, yes?
In the case of recreational sex, the two players do not - in the spirit of fair play - accept the consequences for one or other (or both) of themselves; which would mean taking responsibility for the new life they have created. (Which would be the fair and morally right thing to do.) No a consensual conspiracy against that new life transpires, such that neither of them choose to bear the consequences of the “shot” meeting its target, but rather they slough off the result of death onto an innocent third party, one that never consented to playing the game with them in the first place. So much for “consent” making recreational sex legitimate or licit - in fact that DOES make it more like two robbers mutually consenting to the robbing of a life from an innocent third party. (See my objection that consent does not make a robbery licit, now? Spelling it out like this should help.)
You are correct in some sense that comparing recreational sex to a game of Russian roulette is unfair. It does seem unfair to the game of Russian roulette, if it is played by the rules, the two participants at least have the ‘stones’ to suffer the consequences of their own actions, whereas in the game of recreational sex, the participants have no such scruples and merely waylay the negative consequences onto an innocent and voiceless third party.
Perhaps you are correct, I am being unfair when I compare recreational sex to Russian roulette since the participants in each are decidedly more cowardly and don’t really play by the rules, (more akin to turning the gun away from themselves and towards an innocent third party when they pull the trigger - a cowardly act if ever there was one) nor are they courageous enough to bear the consequences of their own action for themselves, finding a silent ‘scapegoat’ to do so.
Having this realization takes all the “fun” out of the game, doesn’t it? And it should. Played by the rules of “We’ll have the fun, but someone else will pay the price!” is a cowardly way to carry on any activity - recreational or not.
Now, do you see how “rational” I can be? Of course, you won’t agree no matter how rational i make the case, but that is precisely because the definition of ‘rational’ for you is what you find acceptable. (Cf. the definition of ‘rational’ I presented in a previous post.)
Now, save the deluded epithets and, at least, form a reasoned and compelling retort to this post. Otherwise, your blather has been shown for what it is.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Only if you define “accident” as “unintended.” That isn’t correct, however, since accidents are unforeseen and unintended.
Someone who does not intend a tragic event, but should have reasonably foreseen it, is guilty of negligence.
Even granting you that point, which I haven’t, you still need to explain how having an abortion or using abortifacients after the fact is “an accident.” Those are deliberate choices to take a human life by at least one of the two who consent to “recreational sex.”
It is pretty clear to me that you haven’t really thought this through very well, except from a particularly one-sided position.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Ah, yes, but the difference is between those who are having legitimate “fun” and are enjoying the exhilaration while at the same time accepting the “thrill” of all possible consequences. Your joy-riders who do everything possible - mechanically and artificially - to nullify the “possible consequences” are not having a “joy-ride” they are participating in a calculated conspiracy - betting they will “get away with it,” but stacking the deck such that if they don’t, someone else (the aborted baby) will be left suffering the consequences in their place. My definition of cheap thrills - really cheap thrills - at no cost to the participants, no matter what, and they’ll see to that come hell or high water.
So, calling them “surgical procedures” legitimates them? Changing the definition of things will, apparently, change the reality. Now, that WOULD require a surgical procedure to make me believe it - a lobotomy.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no there are huge and relevant differences between a couple that practices NFP and one that will do everything whatsoever to prevent a pregnancy. The couple who practice NFP do so with the good of the potential child in mind, since if they have a child they will care for and cherish it. The couple that will resort to all and any means to prevent a child from being born and who will abort if necessary do not, obviously, care for the child since they are willing to kill it in the end to prevent it from infringing on their lives. See the difference?
It isn’t a red herring, it is a relevant difference in terms of the lengths each is willing to go to “have their joy-ride.” A “joy-ride” at “who cares what the cost” is quite different than drawing a line at “before someone is seriously hurt or dies.”
I
icamhif
Guest
I don’t think Pallas or any other rational non-Christians endorse taking poorly calculated risks on recreational sex. You’re creating a straw man, Peter.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
The Russian roulette as an intended analogy is simply incorrect - and not because it is distasteful. I explained already that the purpose of this “game” is to kill or be killed. If you cannot understand that it has nothing to do with recreational sex, then you are beyond redemption.
Unforeseen? If you get in a car, there is non-zero chance that you will be in an accident. If you engage in recreational sex, there is either a non-zero chance of conception or a zero chance if the fail-safe method is used. What is “foreseen”? That it might happen? Anything “might” happen.
The chance is either zero or a very small number - just like with traffic accidents. It is reasonable to assume that nothing untoward will happen, if you take the necessary precautions (unfortunately not all couples do). To avoid pregnancy you can control all the aspects of the act, while you cannot control all the circumstances of the traffic. So to suffer a traffic accident is much more “foreseeable” - and yet it does not make you “guilty of negligence” if you drive properly and yet something happens.
Just like the race car drivers, who install air-bags, safety belts and roll bars to minimize the chance of injury. But while it is almost impossible to prevent all car accidents, it is perfectly possible to eliminate all pregnancies - which you keep disregarding. Maybe you don’t know how it can happen. (If so, I suggest to read the book “The Joy of Sex”. It would be an eye opener.)
The fact is a fact, no matter how hard you intend to deny it. Of course there is no reason to go that far, a morning-after pill will do the job just nicely, without surgical interference.
You again try to make a distinction based upon an assumption of what might happen if the two methods fail. What kind of evidence do you have that ALL couples who practice ABC will certainly choose abortion if the method fails? None at all, you just blow hot air. Many (or most) catholic couples who practice birth control would accept the failure, and are willing to carry the pregnancy to term.
If both methods are successful (ABC and NFP) then there is no difference. Both attempt to have a joy-ride; enjoy the sex without suffering the unwanted consequences. If they fail, then both couples might choose to terminate the pregnancy or they might choose to carry it to term. So there is no difference whatsoever! Your only “defense” might be that the couple which practices NFP is more likely to carry the pregnancy to term and less likely to terminate it, while the couple which chooses ABC might do otherwise. That is all you have, some unsupported “suspicion”.
There are other valid analogies for recreational sex, not just driving cars. Our legs are “designed” for going from one place to another. The gratuitous motion of legs - DANCING - is therefore “intrinsically disordered” - according to your standards. Consuming food or drinks are “designed” to get us nutrition. Drinking or eating zero calorie foods or drinks is therefore “intrinsically disordered”, since they try to artificially bypass the biologically “ordained” reason - to get nutrition. To have enjoyment while not getting the calories - recreational eating or drinking - purely to enjoy the taste. If you would be intellectually honest, you would see that these are all valid analogies for recreational sex, and there is nothing wrong with them.
You still commit the same error; you wish to evaluate the “method” based upon the possible action when the method fails. You would badmouth the recreational sex, even if it were hundred percent failsafe and effective. So your dragging in the possible action of abortion simply tries to change the goalposts, to disregard the fact, that there is no rational, secular argument against recreational sex.
And there is no valid theological argument either. The idea that the zygote is already a human person presupposes that it already has some unmeasurable and nebulous “soul”. But - unfortunately for you - not even the church asserts that “ensoulment” occurs at conception. So you have no argument left at all. Not that this fact will shut you up. I bet that you will try again to come up with some irrational and nonsensical “argument”.
B
Bradski
Guest
There seems to be a tendency to associate recreational sex with abortions. On the reasonable assumption that anyone who does associate the two would consider an abortion to constitute harm, then it is not a valid proposition. As has already been stated, quite clearly and unequivocally, if an act results in harm, it could be considered to be immoral. Therefore, sex which results in an abortion, or, for the purpose of this discussion, sex that carries a risk that it may result in an abortion, could be considered immoral (there is an argument that some degree of risk is acceptable in any scenario, but as I said, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s skip that).
As Pallas has briefly touched upon, sex can be guaranteed to carry zero risk of pregnancy. Sex between two people that carries such a risk – that is, absolutely none at all, cannot be considered harmful in regard to any potential abortion.
So to summarise. If a sexual act results in a pregnancy which is subsequently aborted or carries a risk of such a pregnancy, then for the purpose of this discussion, we can consider it immoral.
Now, does anyone have any objections to recreational sex that does not and cannot, in any way possible, result in a pregnancy? Is there any other reason why you would consider it immoral?
As Pallas has briefly touched upon, sex can be guaranteed to carry zero risk of pregnancy. Sex between two people that carries such a risk – that is, absolutely none at all, cannot be considered harmful in regard to any potential abortion.
So to summarise. If a sexual act results in a pregnancy which is subsequently aborted or carries a risk of such a pregnancy, then for the purpose of this discussion, we can consider it immoral.
Now, does anyone have any objections to recreational sex that does not and cannot, in any way possible, result in a pregnancy? Is there any other reason why you would consider it immoral?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I think Mr. Plato’s argument fails if you consider that some women have their tubes cut and some men have a vasectomy either of which would rule out procreative sex.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Not according to the Church’s definition of “procreative”, and not according to the scientific fact that sometimes breakthroughs occur despite a sterilization.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Right on. I even created a scenario to illustrate this.
Let’s take a young, married couple. Being young their love is intermixed with heavy desire or lust, due to their raging hormones. They are responsible people, who are aware that they cannot afford to have children, because they are still unable to provide a good upbringing. Later, when their finances are stable they want to have children.
According to the ultra-orthodox people their only recourse is periodic abstinence, hoping that the NFP method will not fail. As we all know the NFP is not 100 percent foolproof. But that is an irrational option. Why should they abstain when there is a 100%, absolutely foolproof method to strengthen their relationship, to build up a mutual bond, and have all the fun there can be?
Even if someone asserts that sex is primarily for procreation, it does not logically follow that every sexual act must be “open” to procreation. It is enough to be “open” when the couple actually wants to procreate.
You are being too lenient.
If the probability of a “mishap” is very small, there is no rational reason why one should not consider it to be “practically” zero. There is a non-zero probability that one would suffocate due to the fact that all the air-molecules happen to move away from him to the other side of the room, and thus he is left in sitting in a vacuum. This has a non-zero chance of happening, but no rational person would consider it something to worry about.But of course I see your point.
And this is the 64thousand dollar question.
Or if someone had a full hysterectomy. But there is no need to go to such extremes.
No breakthrough can create a pregnancy, if there is no sperm getting close to the egg. And there is no need for a special equipment to prevent that.
Let’s stop dancing around it. The beautiful phrase “soixante neuf” will fulfill all the needs of the couple. And there is no chance of procreation.
B
Bradski
Guest
The aim is to determine whether sex which is simply recreational is immoral. What definition the Church attaches to the term ‘procreative’ is irrelevant. The term recreational precludes it being procreative by definition.
And we are talking about a sexual act. Not long term considerations of sexual congress. A scientific breakthrough is hardly likely to occur whilst you are actually having sex. Let’s be clear again, we are talking about a sexual act where there is ZERO chance of pregnancy.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Welcome to the Moral Theology forum. This is where we discuss topics of Catholic morality using Church definitiins of terms. The aim of this thread is to provide evidence for the natural law. And you clearly didn’t understand at all what I meant by breakthrough [fertilizations].
- Status