What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[ppp]

I don't think that I have gone fully evasive. Your point was about...

I stated my point quite clearly and succinctly multiple times. I will repeat it for you . You are not morally obligated to provide your body to support another person. And you are not morally obligated to continue bodily support once started.
Apparently, you have some trouble seeing that second sentence. No surprise there.

The point is: the patient agrees beforehand that the donor may stop anytime. Both donor and patient agree to the rules of the procedure, before it even gets started.

False. No matter how many times you say that, it will still be false. The patient is never asked for their agreement to the donor's right to withdraw. Their agreement or disagreement is moot.

Look, this is going round and round in circles. Can we stop here? I still have other things to do.

Of course! You have the right to withdraw consent to the conversation at any time!

 

[Watchmen]

If you say so,

So trying to derail the thread was you motive?

No. That wasn’t my motive. Maybe you should give it a rest since you don’t get it.

 

[ChristineM]

No. That wasn’t my motive. Maybe you should give it a rest since you don’t get it.

I so get it, as do others. But a rest it is, i have given up banging my head on a wall long ago. Have fun

 

[Bird123]

A: You're intoxicating.
B: You're amazing.
A: Sex?
B: Yes, please. I have till five.
A: I'll get a room across the street.
{pause for lingering kiss}
B: Any health concerns we need to work around?
A: No. And I test quarterly
B: Cool. Me too. But have had HPV
A: Not a problem. You'll get condoms?
B: I'll get the condoms. Latex okay?
A: I'm allergic.
B: Ok. I'll get polyisoprene. Lube preference?
A: Anything water based. And a dam. It will may me more comfortable. And get drinks and snacks. Salty snacks.
B: Will do. Here's my number. Text me with the room number.
A: You bet! {pause for promising kiss} We're going to have so much fun!
B: Feel my heart. It's pounding. I'd better go shopping before I forget how to walk. See you soon!

Relationships are sticky, even when it is just sex. Unconditional Love always does what is Best for the other. One must be very careful not to hurt others because of a few moments of self gratification. It should be a WE and not a ME.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[thomas t]

I stated my point quite clearly and succinctly multiple times.

when you first said I was fully evasive you referred to my comment on your post no. 444. That was the emergency you described. So don't pretend I was "fully evasive". This is getting on my nerves a bit...

You are not morally obligated to provide your body to support another person. And you are not morally obligated to continue bodily support once started.
Apparently, you have some trouble seeing that second sentence. No surprise there.

no, I did not and do not have trouble seeing that second sentence.
Wasn't I clear enough in my last answer? It misses the point. The analogy that you seem to be trying to establish is flawed.
I never claimed otherwise, btw.

I don't think that the patient did not consent to the donor's option to leave the treatment mid-process. This is part of the rules. If he consented to the treatment then you expect the patient to have consented to this part of the regulation, too. If he really did not know that the donor has this set of rights, it's the doctor's fault or the hosptal's. It's not up to the donor to assume that the hospital did not inform the patient about the donor's right to withdraw mid-process.

In Germany for instance, hospitals must inform the patient about any treatment. It's part of German law. See (German source) Einwilligung des Patienten: Rechtliche Details, die Ärzte kennen sollten.
EDITED to add link.

 

[ppp]

Relationships are sticky, even when it is just sex.

True.

Unconditional Love always does what is Best for the other.

False.

One must be very careful not to hurt others because of a few moments of self gratification.

True.

It should be a WE and not a ME.

In the context of the OP...true.

 

[Watchmen]

I so get it, as do others. But a rest it is, i have given up banging my head on a wall long ago. Have fun

Nice to see you finalize realize there was nothing bigoted or hateful about my posts.

 

[ppp]

when you first said I was fully evasive you referred to my comment on your post no. 444. That was the emergency you described. So don't pretend I was "fully evasive". This is getting on my nerves a bit...

Your evasiveness is getting on my nerves, as well. No one is forcing you to engage. You can withdraw at any time you wish.

In fact, I am surprised that you are still engaging after your last post.

no, I did not and do not have trouble seeing that second sentence.
Wasn't I clear enough in my last answer? It misses the point. The analogy that you seem to be trying to establish is flawed.

It does not miss the point. It is the point. The analogy is perfect. In any case - pregnancy, donation, or otherwise - the person providing the use of their body to support the life of another is not morally obligated to continue support beyond their wish to do so.

I never claimed otherwise, btw.

"I never claimed otherwise" is not the same as a "Yes, I agree." "I never claimed otherwise" is evasive of declaring a position.

 

[ChristineM]

Nice to see you finalize realize there was nothing bigoted or hateful about my posts.

So you keep saying

 

[McBell]

before I start ...let me add to my point: unborn life doesn not agree in a way that you can discern to anything coming close to its death.

ROTFLMAO

You can no more prove it than I can prove the opposite.

In fact, any "argument" you present to prove it will be just as meaningful as those who use it to prove they want to die.

 

[Watchmen]

So you keep saying

So you keep saying

Well, you said you get it. I was just taking you at your word.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, you said you get it. I was just taking you at your word.

Seems to.me that you must have the last word

 

[Bird123]

True.

False.

True.

In the context of the OP...true.

Unconditional Love isn't about giving another everything they want. Unconditional Love is doing what is best for the other or what is believed to be the best. If this were not true, it would not be Unconditional Love.

How can you say false??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

Unconditional Love always does what is Best for the other.

At the *very* best acting on the feeling of unconditional love causes one to do what one thinks is best for the other. Unfortunately, what one feels is best can be horribly, terribly, tragically wrong.

Most often people acting on what they claim to be unconditional love, still place their goals for the person they claim to love unconditionally over that person's own goals and agency. Seven of the most self-serving words spoken are, "I did it for your own good."

Also, doing what is best for another does not require unconditional love. It does not even require unconditional like. Just moral principles that support such actions.

 

[thomas t]

ROTFLMAO

You can no more prove it than I can prove the opposite.

In fact, any "argument" you present to prove it will be just as meaningful as those who use it to prove they want to die.

The point is: those who kill unborn life cannot argue that the purported consent of the unborn life is perceivable. They have nothing to back this up if they were to argue in this way. It is mere speculation, as I see it.

 

[thomas t]

Your evasiveness

I don't have it.
You are reading that into the texts I write.

It does not miss the point. It is the point. The analogy is perfect.

no, it misses the point.
In the treatment you expect the patient to have consented. The hospitals informed them.
When it comes to abortion (as casual sex leading to more abortions)... you don't expect the unborn life to consent.
That's the difference.
Your analogy is moot.

In any case - pregnancy, donation, or otherwise - the person providing the use of their body to support the life of another is not morally obligated to continue support beyond their wish to do so.

you're ignoring consent here, as I siad. As I said in my last point: your analogy omits the consent part of the patient/ the fetus. So it's a flawed analogy.
Consent, present in the one scenario but not in the other, is definitvely constituting the difference between the two scenarios, and it's the decisive one.
You can't compare pregnany and donation because of that very difference.

I only responded to make my point clearer that your analogy is moot, in my opinion. So I'm replying again.
Of course we can always stop, it seems to get too repetetive.

"I never claimed otherwise" is evasive of declaring a position.

it is not, when the point you're making is a flawed analogy. I don't have to comment on scenarios that lead us further away from the topic. This one is about casual sex.
If I want to present my opinion concerning the topic, don't make me express my opinion to 1000 seperate subjects, too.
Let's stay on topic. I think this is totally fair.

 

[ppp]

You are reading that into the texts I write.

Then write non-evasive texts.

In the treatment you expect the patient to have consented. The hospitals informed them.

That is a lie. You are still pretending the patent gets a say in the donor's choices. There is no point in reading further when your claims require duplicity t there foundation.

 

[thomas t]

Then write non-evasive texts.

that's what I did all the time.

That is a lie.

no, it's not.

You are still pretending the patent gets a say in the donor's choices.

Here in Germany for instance, doctors are required by federal law to let the patients know and let them have a say in the treatment. The patients must consent to the treatment they get. Without consent the doctor must not start the treatment.
See link in post # 465.
I don't know what this is like in other countries, though. If you claim it's different... please provide the due links to substanciate your opinion.

There is no point in reading further when your claims require duplicity t there foundation.

but they don't require double standards.

 

[ppp]

Here in Germany for instance, doctors are required by federal law to let the patients know and let them have a say in the treatment.

Whichstill does not grant the patient say in the donor's choices. Your lies of omission are still lies.

 

[thomas t]

. Your lies of omission are still lies.

no, that's not true. I do not and did not lie. Neither by omission nor in any other sense.

Whichstill does not grant the patient say in the donor's choices.

German law does grant the patient a say in the doctor's choices.
In Germany we have § 630d of the BGB § 630d BGB - Einzelnorm:
§ 630d Einwilligung
(1) Vor Durchführung einer medizinischen Maßnahme, insbesondere eines Eingriffs in den Körper oder die Gesundheit, ist der Behandelnde verpflichtet, die Einwilligung des Patienten einzuholen. Ist der Patient einwilligungsunfähig, ist die Einwilligung eines hierzu Berechtigten einzuholen, soweit nicht eine Patientenverfügung nach § 1901a Absatz 1 Satz 1 die Maßnahme gestattet oder untersagt. Weitergehende Anforderungen an die Einwilligung aus anderen Vorschriften bleiben unberührt. Kann eine Einwilligung für eine unaufschiebbare Maßnahme nicht rechtzeitig eingeholt werden, darf sie ohne Einwilligung durchgeführt werden, wenn sie dem mutmaßlichen Willen des Patienten entspricht.
(2) Die Wirksamkeit der Einwilligung setzt voraus, dass der Patient oder im Fall des Absatzes 1 Satz 2 der zur Einwilligung Berechtigte vor der Einwilligung nach Maßgabe von § 630e Absatz 1 bis 4 aufgeklärt worden ist.
(3) Die Einwilligung kann jederzeit und ohne Angabe von Gründen formlos widerrufen werden.

Translation into English
§ 630d consent
(1) Before a treatment starts [...] the doctor must get the approval of the patient. [...]
(2) [...] the patient must be informed according to § 630e (1) to (4) of the BGB.
(3) the patient's approval can be withdrawn anytime without giving reasons.