Actually, in my observation, most male animals would, given any opportunity, mate with any female that will hold still. Or male. In a feedlot, a percentage of steers will be ridden to death by the other steers. Among Spanish Fighting Bulls, one or more will become the 'favorite" and be ridden by (and mated with in the only way possible) the other bulls. Dogs very often will hump anything that holds still.
In these cases, it is the female that determines sexual participation, because males will often keep trying to mate, except the female inconveniently keeps walking out from under the male, or will even kick or bite by way of saying ‘no’. For the male, at any rate, estrus is not the only deciding factor. For the female, it more likely is.
Actually you are ignoring it. You are ignoring the fact that your sexual needs/desires are as much a part of your nature as your ability to procreate. You are also ignoring the fact that your natural sexual tendencies are persistent independent of natural fertility cycles.
In other words, your penis doesn’t need to know you’re just in it for the orgasm. That’s what your big head is for. Think.
I get it… so, you’re saying if I think hard enough, my sperm won’t try and fertilize an egg, no matter what precautions I take. I can just think my way out of physiology! Or, if me and my penis, sit down, and I just explain to him that look, “I understand you think you’ve got a higher calling here, to make more people and populate the earth or whatnot, I appreciate that, but look… This time, I don’t want kids. I just wanna get off with my girl. So you see, all I need you to do, is, y’know, talk to the boys. You seem to be on good speaking terms, and I think they’ll listen to you more than me. Tell them their sperm isn’t necessary today. Maybe some other day, but not today. No no! I still want your ejaculate… just not the swimmers. C’mon, Der Trihs and Brown Eyed Girl, said we’re looking for more than just to procreate, and they’re right, so you have no right to try and impregnate! We good? Yeh? Awesome. I owe you one. Glad we could have this chat, and oh… come to think of it, could you stop with the wood in the mornings, I usually really have to take a piss, and it’s super annoying. Okay, I’m done… See ya in about 5 mins.”
No one is saying that, except you. The point, which you have repeatedly ignored, is that we are not built by evolution with a sexuality that is only, or even usually about reproduction. You are ignoring that our biology/instincts are arranged by evolution to make sex most of the time unlikely or impossible to produce offspring. You are ignoring that this is one of the more unusual, distinctive features of our species, and are trying to claim we the same as animals like cows, which have a very different pattern of sexuality than we do. You are also ignoring the fact that people who are incapable of having children have sex just as enthusiastically.
The “sex is for breeding” argument is largely a religiously based claim, and both malignant and wrong as religious claims virtually always are.
Nope, you don’t have to - someone else did it for you, by inventing abortion.
See, abortion is just as much a product of our brains as the vasectomy you treasure so much. What makes the one acceptable and the other not, besides the personhood of the foetus? That was where you were going with all this talk of what’s natural and what’s not, yes?
Abortion may even be older. Are there circumstances where an animal will spontaneously abort under certain conditions, like starvation or stress? I don’t know of any circumstances where an animal’s sperm production is deliberately curtailed.
So of the two, vasectomy is the freakishly unnatural one.
I ignore nothing, never have. I embrace the fact that we as a species enjoy sex as a social/intimate thing between two people (or more?) completely outside the interest of procreation. Everytime I have sex, other than the two times I meant to, having kids was the furthest thing from my mind. But I don’t delude myself that the act of having sex, is some how different in the eyes of nature. Here, let me take MrDibble’s advice, and try volume: I SAY, GOOD SIR, OUR PHYSIOLOGY IS SUCH THAT WE, AS A SPECIES, ARE AT ODDS BETWEEN OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL DESIRES TO HAVE SEX AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AND OUR PHYSIOLOGY WHICH WILL TRY TO PRODUCE A CHILD WHEN OUR CLEVER CONTRACEPTIVES FAIL.
The danger in the way you think about this, is that, while our psychological desires for sex, by far outnumber and outweigh or desire to have kids, we still run the risk of having children, contraceptives be damned. Now the question is, when contraceptives fail, you have no other choice but to abort or carry out the pregnancy, and give the child away for adoption or just keep the damn thing.
I’m done trying to make my point. I don’t know how to be any clearer. Either you have comprehension issues, or you’re trying to twist my words to the point to make me some opponent so that you may bring in your anti-religion fueled hate baggage. I’ll have none of it, since I am not religious. Nor do I think abortion should be outlawed, so go pick a fight with someone who meets both those criteria if you must.
So sorry you missed my point. Go back and re-read my posts. Obviously you want to turn this into a debate of what nature is. For that, start a new thread. For me, what’s relevant for the issue at hand is our physiology will trump our psychology every time, but hey, we’re clever, haughty animals… eventually we’ll be able to outsmart a million years of evolution to achieve the reverse. I’m just as guilty of this as anyone else, I’m merely pointing it out.
Also: where I’m going with all that, is abortion is ostensibly not the ideal solution. While it’s a human invention that fills a purpose, there are ethical concerns that have a whole spectrum of people up in arms… and I don’t see that going away until you find a way to make everybody on the face of this planet be of the same mind. I’ll be over here, holding my breath.
…and mine was that abortion is just as much due to our physiology as babies are. Our dumb genitals make pregnancies, our clever hands and brains end them.
You keep saying that sex leads to pregnancies, so that’s a consequence of physiology. I’m saying thinking (the other thing we can do with our bodies) leads to technological solutions to the problems of sex, and that’s also our physiology at work.
Singling out abortion versus say vasectomy or any other BC method is just special pleading, if you discount the personhood of the foetus.
And yet sometimes it is. Which is why even the most strong opponents of abortion wouldn’t deny one to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. A little less strong and the physical health of the mother is not even a concern if the pregancy resulted from her sexual brutalization. A little less strong and it’s okay if the fetus is medically compromised. In all of those cases, whether there is a “life” that deserves rights is trumped by the mother’s life. The question we always come back to is at what point does the justification for abortion become an inviable solution for some people. My answer is that when you are pregnant, only you can make that decision. That seems to be your answer, as well. You may not agree with what my cut-off is, and I may not agree with yours, but nevertheless, walk a mile in my shoes before you decide what’s right for me.
Here’s a different example of this concept which you probably won’t agree. I do not wish to offend, but simply illustrate where attitudes with respect to reproduction differ. With all due respect to your diabetic sister (and I dearly hope all goes with her), I personally think it’s socially irresponsible of her to take such distinct risks to her life and/or the ability to care for her existing child(ren) by continuing another pregnancy. The higher possibility of leaving her living children motherless should trump her desire to give birth again. It’s not that I think the surviving children would not flourish growing up with an alternative to their bio mom, it’s that they would lose the benefits of having her in their lives and likely deal with the repercussions for the rest of their lives. It would be tragic and, even more so, because the heightened risk could have been avoided.
But that is her choice. As it should be. How I feel matters not. How anyone close to her feels should only matter to her, but ultimately she is the one that will live or die by the decision, which is hers and hers alone to make. Yes, it makes me uncomfortable, but I don’t wish to take that highly personal choice away from her.
Alas, in pingnak’s world, she wouldn’t even have the choice to make as no reasonable physician would grant her the ability to medically gamble with her health and life in that manner. So, maybe you’d rethink how wonderful his hypothetical sounds. It’s no less invasive of personal reproductive choice as legally denying abortion would be.
Again, no disrespect intended to your sister. I am empathetic and I only hope the best outcome for her and her family.
Pretty much. It’s hard to take “it isn’t natural!” as a valid argument while sitting here staring at a plastic/glass/metal screen powered by electrons…
While I agree with the bolded bit…I still take issue with the first sentence. To some, obortion is ostensibly the ideal solution.
It’s funny, because right in the sentence before I say abortion fulfills a purpose. But I wouldn’t consider it the “ideal” solution to the problem for now. Unfortunately, that ideal hasn’t been invented yet.
Please, I know you feel there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the practice, but do try and acknowledge that there is a very large section of the human population that has various problems with it. The ideal solution would take all these diverse feelings into account.
It’s about as ideal as using a telegraph, before the telephone was invented. We’re an amazingly clever species, let’s keep working on a less barbaric answer.
And that’s the problem, is there will always be some, if not a lot of people who will view the fetus as having personhood. Now we’ve come full circle.
There might be some relief in the future, here are some possibilities (some far fetched, some maybe not so far-fetched):
Create an off/on switch in the mother, something that renders her sterile, until she might want a child. Turn it back off when done. The person would be in complete control of this.
Say the mother might be at risk herself, if she carries the child, yet still would like to keep it (as in the case of my sister). Work toward some sort of artificial womb might be down the line?
Some other third thing.
Anyway, it’s science fiction now, but who knows what the future has in store for us.
But I did acknowledge that. Right there in the bolded part. As you implied…there IS no way (currently) of satisfying everyone with one solution. That’s the problem with ideals. They’re very rarely practical.
I guess the ideal solution, then, would be for everyone to do what is right for them, and accept the fact that there are those whose “ideal” solution is going to differ from their own.
If you don’t support a law preventing it than I apologize, but if you want a law preventing it from taking place, you need to demonstrate the harm to society. As I keep saying, our government exists to protect rights unless intervention is warranted. You need a reason for that intervention. “Because a plurality feel that way” doesn’t meet the criteria, or else smoking, hunting and country music would also be illegal.
