• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abortion - is it wrong?

Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
UltraViolet said:
ok. last call.



Obviously the pre-requisites are IMPORTANT,
so why not just share them?



So you believe that there are specific benefits to the family structure
which can only be experienced "under" marriage.

Why is it so strange then,
when I ask you WHICH MODEL OF MARRIAGE?
What is this Marriage? What are these pre-requisites?
that make sex uniquely 'efficient'?
(and what does that mean?)
And how does it make an actual difference
concerning the many issues and situations
that would make it NOT responsible
or safe, or healthy, or wise
to bring a new life into the world?
(married or not)
Click to expand...

Well.. the prereqs are actually important to me, therefore I know them. You already told me they weren't important to you, but now you're implying that they're important for your argument.. which i'm not particulary interested in.

"The way that sex is widely being used is destructive and ignorant. It has given way for sexual disease to spread rampant, and families to be mostly non-existant and unfulfilling. Orphans, abuse, etc."

Despite what you and some others have said, these are my words. So, i'll address them for you, briefly and simply. After this, we'll both move on hopefully.

I'll define simply. I won't even go into details of a good marriage, aside from avoiding the bolded above.

Marriage is union. When I think of marriage, I think of any number of objects becoming a unit. ex. A family unit.

Efficiency. Complete efficiency would be doing only what is intended. Nothing wasted.

Therefore, I stated that a marriage should have clear intention (obviously agreeing) and the attempt at complete efficiency for the better result of the intention.

I stated that marriage is union.. agreement. To be most efficient in a marriage between more than one person, there obviously needs to be communication and decisiveness. Either you both agree on what's important (most efficient) or there will need to be sacrifices - which is painful, losing something important (less efficient).

Using everything so far that i've mentioned, unless the married agrees to obtain sexual disease, there usually should be none between them. Usually, because there are those who seek to rape and do harm to others. But, because neither of them breached their agreement willingly, there should still be a marriage intact or atleast more hope for one.

Also therefore, if it is not the intention to procreate, use the most efficient method of prevention. Whatever makes the most sense efficiently for whatever is agreed upon. This prevents orphans (and abortions) from occuring as often as they would through uncontrollable events and solely selfish reasons (ex. rape, disagreement, not using caution).

The others - non-existant and unfulfilling (for those involved, including children), and abuse - should be self explanatory at this point, considering what i've outlined.

If you're not looking to marry, these prereqs can still apply to any number of people. Know who you're having sex with to the point where anything unintended is avoided, at least which affects others outside of those involved.
 
Last edited:
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I won't address anymore naive remarks about what i've said.. If you can't read and understand context, go back to school.
 
Heathen Hammer

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Somebody who believes an action they find morally bad can somehow spontaneously generate a vengeful venereal disease shouldn't deign to instruct me of all people to go back to school.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Heathen Hammer said:
You asserted it in that sentence. Can you read or not?

You don't have to use the precise words to make an absurd assertion.
Click to expand...


I can read. Can't speak for you. Even though you're trying to speak for me.


..I'm not interested in talking to you anymore, though.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Heathen Hammer said:
All rapists have STDs?

People who become married won't give each other STDs, unless one of them is raped?
Click to expand...


Notice how you're asking questions about something I already stated?

All rapists do not have STDs.. never asserted that. Annoying to have to explain.

Next time, qoute me back my entire paragraph at least. So we can avoid further misunderstanding.
 
Heathen Hammer

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I quoted your entire statement regarding STDs in the post in question. Quit pretending Im taking what you said out of context. The sentence was presented unaltered. Your confusion speaks for itself in your post.

But you're done talking to me.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
You're right; I am done with you. Dr. Seuss couldn't have wrote it simpler for you.. looks like. So I won't take it as a fault on my part.
 
Sleeppy

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Don't embarrass yourself further, grammar expert. I hope you understood the entire sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top