|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:30 PM |
|
|
Well I'm not really with nature's way when it comes to having lots of children, but only with the 'what is sex used for' 
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In sex, you are the one who is 'drunk' and you are the one who makes the mistake. 
If you simply go with 200 mph in a city (extreme example) just to have some 'fun' you are plainly too selfish. You most certainly know others will probably get hurt (like in sex), but you still do it. If, however, someone else goes with 200mph, then it's not your fault at all 
Usually, two people are necessary to have sex - so mistake lies on both sides, if they were irresponsible. Otherwise, fault is in non-100% functional products. Having safe sex cannot be compared to 200mph town-ride. Yeah, if Iīm driving like crazy through town, I most certainly know that its probable to have a car crash. If Iīm having safe sex, Iīm most certain, that my GF will not get pregnant. Rest of case depends on safe-sex products. Really, women can get pregnant only some days in month (period) and if you count pills, condoms and such, its probable, that you will not get her pregnant. But if protect gear doesnīt work, what should you do? Probability is amazigly low, but what if you have like hundreds millions people having sex each day? Even in thirties, when you have two little children, you still have urge to have sex - but you already have enough descendants and next would decrease comfort of whole family. So you will have no sex for rest of your life? Or would you rather consider possibility of taking pills and taking slight risk that can be in its worst taken back? (not counting sterilization, in your 30ī its too early and what if one of your children dies...). Moreover, abortion is medical operation as any other, what can damage health of mother and there is in fact not that small chance to seriously reduce her fertility. Show me one person, who would willingly get pregnant just to try abortion.
Quote:
Ok, that is your position, but attitude "I donīt have sex so others shouldnīt too" is bit selfish.
Well some criminals have 'pleasures' when they kill others too. Does that mean that we are selfish to lock them up, to not allow them to pursue their pleasure.
Most of your examples are killers, snows, drunks or absolutely irresponsible idiots. Can you judge whole mankind only from these? I doubt so. You are creating your theory from small minority of "morally" bad people. Try to apply your examples and their impacts on decent and mature people - you will see the change.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Usually, two people are necessary to have sex - so mistake lies on both sides, if they were irresponsible. Otherwise, fault is in non-100% functional products. Having safe sex cannot be compared to 200mph town-ride. Yeah, if Iīm driving like crazy through town, I most certainly know that its probable to have a car crash. If Iīm having safe sex, Iīm most certain, that my GF will not get pregnant. Rest of case depends on safe-sex products. Really, women can get pregnant only some days in month (period) and if you count pills, condoms and such, its probable, that you will not get her pregnant. But if protect gear doesnīt work, what should you do? Probability is amazigly low, but what if you have like hundreds millions people having sex each day? Even in thirties, when you have two little children, you still have urge to have sex - but you already have enough descendants and next would decrease comfort of whole family. So you will have no sex for rest of your life? Or would you rather consider possibility of taking pills and taking slight risk that can be in its worst taken back? (not counting sterilization, in your 30ī its too early and what if one of your children dies...). Moreover, abortion is medical operation as any other, what can damage health of mother and there is in fact not that small chance to seriously reduce her fertility. Show me one person, who would willingly get pregnant just to try abortion.
Well I never said abortion is 'very easy', but it's a lot easier than raising the baby (if you don't want him). The problem is, like I said, that it affects someone else.
Here's a non-criminal example: Let's suppose you want to have some fun with a certain thing. The probability that your neighbor gets hurt is quite low, but it is still there nonetheless. Would you still do it? (let's again suppose that you are not a kid that needs to play).
But in my opinion (of course) the fetus isn't just slightly hurt, but approaches the level of being killed (mentally or metaphorically, like killing his hope after YOU gave it, etc..)
And of course, mistake lies on both sides, I'm not defending the men from their necessary responsibility
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's a non-criminal example: Let's suppose you want to have some fun with a certain thing.
Well this is something I can't bring myself to understand. You continually reduce sexuality to just irresponsibly 'having some fun' Seriously, read something of the subject. These examples are just bad IMHO.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 02:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's a non-criminal example: Let's suppose you want to have some fun with a certain thing. The probability that your neighbor gets hurt is quite low, but it is still there nonetheless. Would you still do it? (let's again suppose that you are not a kid that needs to play).
Depends on which activity that would be. But generally yes, Iīm sure that neighbour would forgive me, if his wound wasnīt intended, but only unprobable accident.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well this is something I can't bring myself to understand. You continually reduce sexuality to just irresponsibly 'having some fun' Seriously, read something of the subject. These examples are just bad IMHO.
I've known very healthy people without much sex (more than I mean in this topic of course). Mentally of course it depends how they're raised.
Quote:
Depends on which activity that would be. But generally yes, Iīm sure that neighbour would forgive me, if his wound wasnīt intended, but only unprobable accident.
I don't know whether he would forgive you if you did something irreversible?
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:23 PM |
|
|
I would like to make theDeath's last example a little bit more accurate, hope he doesn't mind .
Lets say you want to do something badly(you could restrain yourself, but not easily) and in the process there's a very slight chance of a problem happening. If it happens, you may choose that it inconvieniences only you, or it inconvieniences you less but also inconvieniences your neighbor heavily, even more than you in the first option. Let's assume he does not agree to be that much inconvienienced.
Would you take the second option? I would not. I consider making other pay the consequences of my actions unfair.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Depends on which activity that would be. But generally yes, Iīm sure that neighbour would forgive me, if his wound wasnīt intended, but only unprobable accident.
I don't know whether he would forgive you if you did something irreversible?
You put your question without "irreversible", so answer was simple. Well, if it was something irreversible, what could I do - I would be sad, say sorry and offer possible help. There is nothing I could do about it, even if he hadnīt forgive me.
Quote:
I would like to make theDeath's last example a little bit more accurate, hope he doesn't mind .
Lets say you want to do something badly(you could restrain yourself, but not easily) and in the process there's a very slight chance of a problem happening. If it happens, you may choose that it inconvieniences only you, or it inconvieniences you less but also inconvieniences your neighbor heavily, even more than you in the first option. Let's assume he does not agree to be that much inconvienienced.
Would you take the second option? I would not. I consider making other pay the consequences of my actions unfair.
Can you form some example from real life based on your post? I canīt imagine that situation quite clearly.
____________
Result matters
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:33 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 15:34, 27 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well this is something I can't bring myself to understand. You continually reduce sexuality to just irresponsibly 'having some fun' Seriously, read something of the subject. These examples are just bad IMHO.
I've known very healthy people without much sex (more than I mean in this topic of course). Mentally of course it depends how they're raised.
So do I, for example a buddhist friend. However denying it from the rest of the people is a whole different matter, and results are not good! (depression etc.) I would not claim to know humanity through some of my friends.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
@executor:
Quote:
I would like to make theDeath's last example a little bit more accurate, hope he doesn't mind .
Your clarification is nicely put (for me), thanks
@Anakrom:Quote:
Can you form some example from real life based on your post? I canīt imagine that situation quite clearly.
Well I guess what executor was saying, is that the neighbor is the fetus. You have made a mistake, gave him the chance to life (mistake because you do not want that). Then, you are 'inconvenienced' by the fetus. You have to choose:
1) either make it convenient (abortion) and thus making it inconvenient for the fetus (because you gave him chance/hope to life and then took it, again metaphorically in my opinion, I don't know about executor's).
2) either make it inconvenient for you and let the fetus live
of course my opinion is that raising a kid without wanting him/her is not the best approach, but abortion isn't either.. but I guess I explained that too much already.
@Minion:Quote:
So do I, for example a buddhist friend. However denying it from the rest of the people is a whole different matter, and results are not good! (depression etc.) I would not claim to know humanity through some of my friends.
Well I wasn't talking about humanity, but about the thing that you CAN do it if you WANT (i.e they are some kind of examples that we could follow and proves us it's possible)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me spell it out for very simply: The world is a 10x10 squared area, out of which 20 squares are occupied by human population.
What you fail to understand is that while we can't increase the amount of squares, we can increase what each individual square can produce.
Quote:
Mvass: I am strongly getting the feeling you would be the kind of person that could have 3000 people killed just to make yourself some money. Yes, such kind of people exist.
You didn't understand what I said. What I meant was that if a mother wants to abort a child, she doesn't want the child. If a child is unwanted, then he or she is more likely to be neglected. If a child is neglected, he or she is more likely to turn to criminal ways, which harms society and can get the child (and others) killed.
Quote:
HE SUFFERS because of this
He's a criminal, he deserves it.
Quote:
the fetus does not deserve it
The fetus, as I have stated previously, is violating the mother's property rights. Thus, she has the right to remove it.
The fetus has no right to be attached to the mother without her consent. He has no more right than for a blind deaf quadrapalegic to be lying on my lawn. The mother has as much of a right to remove the fetus as I do to remove the quadrapalegic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Can you form some example from real life based on your post? I canīt imagine that situation quite clearly.
My example was meant to be abstract, in real life relations between born people rarely are similar to that of unwanted pregnancy, provided that such situations exist at all.
Should I come up with one, I'll post it.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:48 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 15:50, 27 May 2008.
|
Quote:
(i.e they are some kind of examples that we could follow and proves us it's possible)
If something is possible for someone, it doesn't mean it is to another. My buddhist friend for example, the lifestyle would NOT suit for everyone. Even though I can claim it is 'possible'
And it doesn't state why should one pursue such a life? Because life without sex CAN good? Doen't look that from those perspectives that it is something to aim for. And atleast the preliminary studies (if you read my post on previous page) do rather clearly indicate the benefits of sex life to health at least (physical and mental to a lesser degree).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The fetus, as I have stated previously, is violating the mother's property rights. Thus, she has the right to remove it.
Like I said, it's not the fetus' fault. You can't compare this to a blind deaf quadrapalegic lying on your lawn, unless of course you told him to lay there. Do you consider it fair then, to remove him forcingly, after you let him?
Because you know, the mother (with the father) gave the fetus a chance to life, so she and he are responsible for that, they can't just say "he is an intruder" because they let him in. The fetus is not a slave so the mother does not have the "I gave you life, I take it back" rights.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 04:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
With your attitude, sex would be only tool of making children.
What's wrong with that? that's actually nature's definition
Nature's definition also is "Only the strong survive". Does that mean we have the right to kill every baby who was born with a kind of genetic defect? Or any other human being who had an accident and lost a leg, an arm, the ability to walk etc...?
I think it is a bit dangerous to talk about "Nature's definition" if you do not include ALL possibilities...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 04:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't compare this to a blind deaf quadrapalegic lying on your lawn
Even if you dragged the quadrapalegic onto your lawn, you can change your mind and drag him back off. Right of being on someone's property can be revoked at any time.
Quote:
Do you consider it fair then, to remove him forcingly, after you let him?
Yes.
Quote:
she and he are responsible for that, they can't just say "he is an intruder" because they let him in
The question of "life" is a separate one. The fact is that both the quadrapalegic and the fetus are intruders as soon as they don't want him to be there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 04:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nature's definition also is "Only the strong survive". Does that mean we have the right to kill every baby who was born with a kind of genetic defect? Or any other human being who had an accident and lost a leg, an arm, the ability to walk etc...?
I think it is a bit dangerous to talk about "Nature's definition" if you do not include ALL possibilities...
I meant, it is a natural instinct, and it has a natural purpose. Sure we can have our own versions of it (purpose of it), but then I only said that it was nature's definition (not that I agree with it 100% btw). I didn't say we have to be primitive animals that go by the rule of the jungle (survival of the fittest). If an apple has a certain purpose (to be eaten) then that's nature's definition of it's purpose. If, for example, you think apples are not to be eaten, then you've changed the purpose. Never said that it is necessary bad, but you afterwards get annoyed by the fact that you still eat the apple and don't want (or have babies and don't want).
@mvassilev: The fetus is not a slave, the so-called 'intruder' that was brought into the house by YOU is not either. You can't just alter his life as you want. Remember though that he did not ASK to be given into your house, you dragged him. Now are you supposed to kick him outside too? So basically I can come at your place, drag you into my country and then kick you back? and that's ok?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 05:32 PM |
|
|
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. The quadrapalegic used to be on my property by both his will and my own. Let us say that I didn't drag him there, he somehow communicated to me that he wants to be there (let us say body signals of some sort). But I don't want him there any more. So I can remove him.
The question of how he got there is unimportant compared to what to do once he is there against my will.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 05:55 PM |
|
|
|
Accourding to law........ if you gave it the permission to stay, its fine. However if it was following somebody and turns down on your property without your permission, 100% RIGTH TI REMOVE IT OF THE PROPERTY.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The question of how he got there is unimportant compared to what to do once he is there against my will.
But it IS important because you see, you're the main reason he got there in the first place
Sure you have the right to remove someone from your property as long as you have nothing to do with him being there or whatever. The point is, you are the one who brought him into your house, he could not have come without you. Therefore he is not an intruder, and if you decide it's wrong, it's you to blame. Making him suffer because of this is truly unfair.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
