What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[ChristineM]

Ok. She’s a cougar and he has Down syndrome.

How sad to show such bigoted bull when you lack any comprehension of humanity outside your own mind.

 

[ChristineM]

Sometimes schizophrenics believe their voices....

And for thousands of years religion has been killing atheists. Some religions still do, mentioning no names.

 

[ChristineM]

unless we have been informed about the fate of the individual by God

What was that about schizophrenics?

 

[ppp]

I was simplyfying.
As I said, no grown up child would ever accuse their parents of having transported them in a car. That's the point here.
As a comparison, aborted babies never say "it's ok" afterwards.

If that is your point then you did not make it. The morality of an action is not determined by the ability, or lack of ability to accuse afterwards. They are comparable situations because you are talking about people taking actions where consent is not given by a third party at the time that the actions were taken.

You are giving massive weight to the situation where the unborn does not exist, but is purely hypothetical in nature. Meanwhile, you are giving a complete pass to any moral culpability for the actions of a parent in the
car scenario.

I will say it again. You don't get to count the completely non-existent unborn at the point where people decide to have sex, and then totally dismiss the actually existing unborn when you address other actions taken by those same people. You cannot have it both ways.

numbers show how frequent abortions really are. If there were like two or three abortions every year, then the way casual sex is handled wouldn't seem at odds with protecting the unborn life, ob viously.
But if it's 100.000... then casual sex also has a fair amount of abortions as a consequence, I guess.

This statement seems to be founded on the assumption that having an abortion is immoral.

 

[thomas t]

You are giving massive weight to the situation where the unborn does not exist, but is purely hypothetical in nature.

The risk of having an unwanted pregnany is not hypothetical. It's a fact for sex. I mean if you don't want to have children.

You don't get to (1) count the completely non-existent unborn at the point where people decide to have sex, and then (2) totally dismiss the actually existing unborn when you address other actions taken by those same people. You cannot have it both ways.

(1) I count the potentially occuring unwanted pregnancy given that abortions do occur after an unwanted pregnancy.
It happens, so I count it.
I won't sell arms to a dictatorship either. Even if at the time that the actions were taken the human rights abuse using the weapon I was selling wasn't there. I want to avoid the future scenario that my arm becomes relevant in killings. It's just the knowledge that dictatorships are prone to using violence in a harmful manner.
Casual sex and its risk is about a future scenario that may happen to arising unborn life once the pregnancy is there.
I'm not insinuating that couples having sex are dictators though...
(2) let me assure you: I don't dismiss any existing unborn. I'm predicting that the unborn will forgive the moment they grow adult.

 

[ppp]

I won't sell arms to a dictatorship either. Even at a time when the human rights abuse using the weapon I'd be selling isn't there... I won't sell it. Since I want to avoid the future scenario that my arm becomes relevant in killings. It's just the knowledge that dictatorships are prone to using violence in a harmful manner.

I am going to ignore the fact that you are someone who sells arms to nations, yet thinks that his weapons won't be used in killing people. I will however point out that this is the same situation as with the car. There are actual people people involved in your decision making. Not hypothetical people.

 

[Watchmen]

How sad to show such bigoted bull when you lack any comprehension of humanity outside your own mind.

What’s bigoted?

 

[thomas t]

I don't sell weapons. It was an example. German companies do it in a wrong way.

Not hypothetical people.

Abortion is real and abortion kills. A 100.000 times in Germany, as an example. Every year.

There are people responsible for it. The pregnant woman, the father.
When they know they can't rule out an unwanted pregnancy... and when they know they can't rule out that, in case of it occurring, an abortion will follow... the only way to avoid the risk of killing unborn life later is to avoid sex in the first place, it seems.

 

[ChristineM]

What’s bigoted?

Your personal hatred of strong women and downs syndrome

Bigoted : obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

the only way to avoid the risk of killing unborn life later is to avoid sex in the first place, it seems.

Or avoid placing semen in or around the opening of the vagina. Plenty of other sexual things to do that don't involve that.

 

[ppp]

I don't sell weapons. It was an example. German companies do it in a wrong way.

I know it was an example. I was only expressing wry expressing amusement in the context of your hypothetical. Any arms dealer who sells to a government of any structure, dictatorship or other, knows that his weapons will be used to kill people who are undeserving of death. Else he is hopelessly naive.

Abortion is real and abortion kills. A 100.000 times in Germany, as an example. Every year.

We have gone round and round and down several rabbit holes. I am going to try to cut to the chase:

Actions are not immoral because of size of a number. If Action X is immoral, then it is immoral even if it is only done once. I do not have to cite the number of slaves, or the number rapes, or number of thefts in order to demonstrate their immorality. I can take one instance of any of those to make my case.

In order to demonstrate that casual sex is immoral, you first have to be able to show that:

1. one elective abortion is necessarily immoral,
2. one instance of a decision to have sex is immoral merely because one elective abortion can potentially be a consequence
3. the principles that you use to defend your position apply to the general case where an action can potentially cause the death of someone who does not yet exist. (i.e. no special pleading)

 

[Tambourine]

I'm glad to see so many people in this thread endorse the use of preemptive contraceptive measures during sexual intercourse.

 

[thomas t]

I say abortion kills. And noone can rule out that it's humans that get killed. That's why it is immoral (1).
So anything that could contribute to more abortions should be left undone. (2)

This is how I see it.
Even if it's the casual intercourse (or similar), @Saint Frankenstein you see I'm learning.

I reject (3) though. It's not up to me to answer any question that could come next.

Actions are not immoral because of size of a number.

I invoked the numbers solely for backing my assertion up that it makes sense to assume that abortion occur after casual sex also. It's just that.

 

[ChristineM]

So anything that could contribute to more abortions should be left undone.

I don't know if you are aware but the highest teenage pregnancy rate and highest abortion rate in America is in bible belt states. Your comment cited can easily be read (by me at least) that Christianity should be left undone

 

[ppp]

In order to demonstrate that casual sex is immoral, you first have to be able to show that:

1. one elective abortion is necessarily immoral,

I say abortion kills. And noone can rule out that it's humans that get killed. That's why it is immoral (1).

No. Sorry. But no. I can make all sorts of decisions, of omission and commission, that can lead to the deaths of other people without their consent and my actions would not be considered immoral. As for instance,

• [commission]my father is rH positive, whereas my mother is rH negative. After their first (unsuccessful) pregnancy there was somewhere between a 50% and 75% chance that subsequent pregnancies would lead to the death of the fetus. In attempting to have children, they knowingly took actions that would likely directly lead to further deaths. By your reasoning those actions were immoral because "no one can rule out that it's humans that get killed."
• [ommision] If cannot bring yourself to run into a burning building to attempt to save your child, you are not immoral
• [either/both] the only available compatible blood or organ donor is not morally required to donate to sustain a person's life. Even if he has begun to donation process, he can withdraw at any time. By your reasoning those actions were immoral because "no one can rule out that it's humans that get killed."
• [commision] Getting in a car poses a significant risk to the health and lives of those who cannot consent. No one can rule out that it's humans that get killed.

You keep making claims about the immorality of actions that lead to non-consensual human deaths, but refuse to apply this claim to all non-consensual human deaths. This is a fallacy of Special Pleading.

show that one instance of a decision to have sex is immoral merely because one elective abortion can potentially be a consequence

So anything that could contribute to more abortions should be left undone. (2)

That does not address number 2).

the principles that you use to defend your position apply to the general case where an action can potentially cause the death of someone who does not yet exist. (i.e. no special pleading)

I reject (3) though. It's not up to me to answer any question that could come next.

As I said, you are engaging in special pleading. I apologize for quoting.
Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard. --Wikipedia
You claim principles that you apply on the subject of abortion, but ignore elsewhere.

I invoked the numbers solely for backing my assertion up that it makes sense to assume that abortion occur after casual sex also. It's just that.

In the US 45% of the abortions are had by women who are either married or living together. The same percentage as that of women who are not never-married and not cohabiting. Only a subset of which will fall into the "casual" category. So, I do not know what you are thinking your numbers are backing up.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nothing, so long as it is truly just friendly and casual for both parties, i.e. neither is either reluctant or hoping for a relationship, and so long as adequate precautions against pregnancy have been taken, and so long as neither has any implicit or explicit commitment to others that would be violated.

I have never been in a situation like that. All my sexual encounters have been with girls that I have got to know first and who have been up for a relationship of some kind. Personally I find it difficult to envisage going to bed with someone I have not got to know.

How boring.
Me too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Or avoid placing semen in or around the opening of the vagina. Plenty of other sexual things to do that don't involve that.

You'd never make it as a white, middle-class hetero man of conservative upbringing with an attitude like that.



(this is a joke, people...self-deprecating at that. Don't take it too seriously)

 

[thomas t]

but the highest teenage pregnancy rate and highest abortion rate in America is in bible belt states. Your comment cited can easily be read (by me at least) that Christianity should be left undone

hahaha. But correlation does not imply causation, please.
Bible belt states are usually comparatively poor ones. I mean comparatively, the US is still a rich country, much wealthier than Germany, for instance.

 

[thomas t]

In the US 45% of the abortions are had by women who are either married or living together. The same percentage as that of women who are not never-married and not cohabiting. Only a subset of which will fall into the "casual" category. So, I do not know what you are thinking your numbers are backing up.

I know this.
The numbers are backing up the assertion that there must be at least some abortions in the wake of casual sex related pregnancy.

You keep making claims about the immorality of actions that lead to non-consensual human deaths, but refuse to apply this claim to all non-consensual human deaths. This is a fallacy of Special Pleading.

no. There is no special pleading. I only refuse to start pondering about hypothetical issues once I say that abortion kills and casual sex as described in the OP lead to more abortions. It stays my opinion.
But let's dive into the scenarios you presented.

,

• [commission]my father is rH positive, whereas my mother is rH negative. After their first (unsuccessful) pregnancy there was somewhere between a 50% and 75% chance that subsequent pregnancies would lead to the death of the fetus. In attempting to have children, they knowingly took actions that would likely directly lead to further deaths. By your reasoning those actions were immoral because "no one can rule out that it's humans that get killed."
• [ommision] If cannot bring yourself to run into a burning building to attempt to save your child, you are not immoral
• [either/both] the only available compatible blood or organ donor is not morally required to donate to sustain a person's life. Even if he has begun to donation process, he can withdraw at any time. By your reasoning those actions were immoral because "no one can rule out that it's humans that get killed."
• [commision] Getting in a car poses a significant risk to the health and lives of those who cannot consent. No one can rule out that it's humans that get killed.

1/ does not involve intentional killing
2/ the difference to abortion after casual sex: there is no danger to you if you avoid casual sex.
3/ one donor is not accountable to the patient, in my view, since no one should be forced into a treatment concerning their own bodies, I think.
4/ they consent after the fact when they are adult. Furthermore, in traffic there is no intentional killing involved. Else it is terrorism.


so, after having read your scenarios... let me change my points 1) and 2)
I say abortion kills on purpose. And noone can rule out that it's humans that get killed. That's why it is immoral (1).
So anything that could contribute to more abortions should be left undone. (2)

 

[Watchmen]

Your personal hatred of strong women and downs syndrome

Bigoted : obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.

Nope. No hatred here. No idea where you get this stuff. I gave a couple examples in response to the OP. I guess you weren’t paying attention.