Sex strike

Shiranui117 · May 19, 2019

The Emperor of Mankind said:
Until it comes back to bite them when their own women, out of a desire to not have any (more) kids, refuse to have sex with them.

I would imagine that more conservatives also hold more to the view that the procreative aspect of sex is important regardless, and they are also probably more likely than liberals to wait until marriage to have sex. I would highly doubt that this will have any significant impact on conservatives' sex lives; pro-life conservatives are more than happy to hold the same sexual morals that they have had since long, long before Roe v. Wade.

crossfire · May 19, 2019

Shad said:
The fetus isn't a parasite. Your dehumanization has been noted and expected.

You still haven't demonstrated that a fetus is not parasitical. Here is the medical definition of parasite to help get you started:

Medical definintion of parasite:

Parasite: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism. Parasitic diseases include infections that are due to protozoa, helminths, or arthropods. For example, malaria is caused by Plasmodium, a parasitic protozoa.

Shad · May 19, 2019

crossfire said:
You still haven't demonstrated that a fetus is not parasitical.

Biology does not designate it as a parasite at all.

Here is the medical definition of parasite to help get you started:

Medical definintion of parasite:

Parasite: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism. Parasitic diseases include infections that are due to protozoa, helminths, or arthropods. For example, malaria is caused by Plasmodium, a parasitic protozoa.

Your own source..... Definition of Fetus

Try again son. Your need to dehumanize a fetus has been noted and expected as a common tactic of the pro-choice movement.

Enoch07 · May 19, 2019

crossfire said:
You still haven't demonstrated that a fetus is not parasitical. Here is the medical definition of parasite to help get you started:

Medical definintion of parasite:

Parasite: A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism. Parasitic diseases include infections that are due to protozoa, helminths, or arthropods. For example, malaria is caused by Plasmodium, a parasitic protozoa.

That's easy.

The mother created the fetus from a combination of her own genetic material with that of anothers.

A host does not create it's own parasites.

Shad · May 19, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
It's both. Nothing less.

Nope.

I don't think that you know what a right is. It's not what you prefer to be a right. It's what a society agrees explicitly among itself should be a right, with a mechanism for enforcing it. If it's less than that, you can shout about your rights all you want, but nobody's listening, and others are free to disregard what you proclaim on no authority to be a right.

You calling something a right does not make it one. Tyranny of the majority does not create a right. This just reflect an authoritarian mindset in which you need to be told what a right is by vote. That is not how rights work.

Not by my standards, which are the ones I apply.

You mean the standard you are told as per your above point.

You make your moral proclamations like they're objective reality.

Yup.

Others are free to disregard your preferences. I for one don't care what others believe, but rather, what they can convincingly argue or demonstrate. You just keep repeating your claims and preferences, which have no persuasive power.

Doubt that as you clearly favor the majority determining rights. Fallacious thinking on your part.

I am well satisfied with my moral philosophy. It has guided me well. I have no need or desire to borrow from yours. It's not that I don't value people enough. It's that you don't value dogs enough.

I just do not value dogs as much as a human as dogs are not human.

Yes, that is religious.

Nope. It is obvious from observation. Let me know when cats get to the moon in their own systems.

My view, which differs from yours, is scientific. Man is one of the products of evolution, a branch of the animal kingdom which produced apes that stand upright, have big brains with speech and a reasoning capacity, are relatively hairless, and are hunters. We're still animals.

We are well above normal animals even according to science. You have merely invoked science then ignored key factors which separate humans from everything else.

The idea that humanity is not a part of the process that produced the other animals, or that that process produced something that transcends the rest of the animal kingdom, is a religious conceit. I don't take my ideas or values from such sources. They're unevolved.

Never said this so dismissed

The general disregard for animals is right out of the Christian Bible. I can think of no reason not to treat animals with as much regard and respect as they can use. The ethics of secular humanism derive from the process called rational ethics, or the application of reason and empathy to the problem of appropriate conduct.

Projection and a rant

Moral theory has advanced considerably since the days when people thought that thunder was the anger of the gods who needing appeasing. Women are no longer considered property, Even in my lifetime, just a few decades ago, adult American women often could not get a credit card, nor check into a motel room with any man but her husband, get a car loan without a co-signer, might not get hired if they were fertile and were considering getting pregnant.

Projection and a rant.

These are also leftover religious sensibilities that are irrational and destructive. We can do better than turn to these ancient precepts, but only by rethinking these matters and removing the ideas that aren't working toward maximizing opportunity and well-being for the greatest number, including the beasts.

Projection and a rant

But it does make it a right, which was the topic. The pregnant woman has the right to have a legal abortion for any reason, even what you call whim. That's what a right is - not what you wish was a right. It's in writing, and the government will enforce that right if need be. If that changes, then the right may be lost.

According to your the majority creates rights which is just tyranny of the majority and a complete failure on your part after babbling about morals and rights to understand this factor. About what I expect from the left these days.

crossfire · May 19, 2019

Shad said:
Biology does not designate it as a parasite at all.

Your own source..... Definition of Fetus

Try again son. Your need to dehumanize a fetus has been noted and expected as a common tactic of the pro-choice movement.

I'm not dehumanizing an embryo, a fetus, a baby, men, or women. We all started out the same way. And yes, the relationship of embryo/fetus and host is parasitical in nature.

crossfire · May 19, 2019

Enoch07 said:
That's easy.

The mother created the fetus from a combination of her own genetic material with that of anothers.

A host does not create it's own parasites.

The body can also mistake its own tissue (that it creates) as an intruder and attack it.

Enoch07 · May 19, 2019

crossfire said:
The body can also mistake its own tissue (that it creates) as an intruder and attack it.

The bodies immune system can turn and attack the body as well. I know I have one. Life is strange.

The difference in your example is that the tissue created cannot go on to become a sentient being given long enough.

crossfire · May 19, 2019

Enoch07 said:
The bodies auto-immune system can turn and attack the body as well. I know I have one. Life is strange.

The difference in your example is that the tissue created cannot go on to become a sentient being given long enough.

This is true. However, as mentioned upthread, the fetus is sometimes attacked by the mother's immune system in the cases of Rh incompatibility and pre-eclampsia.

Enoch07 · May 19, 2019

crossfire said:
This is true. However, as mentioned upthread, the fetus is sometimes attacked by the mother's immunue system in the cases of Rh incompatibility and pre-eclampsia.

This is just one of those unfortunate strange things in life. It's not the norm.

Science can't explain why the immune system does these things sometimes.

Myself for instance. My immune system attacks the nerve receptors in my muscles, blocking the signals from my nervous system. This cause weakness, fatigue, and even paralysis occasionally (lungs twice, heart once, left leg twice, right arm once, and my throat countless times which causes any food/water/spit that I try to swallow when it happens to shoot into my lungs instead of stomach). It's a rare condition but that's my point. It exist but it's not something that's of the norm. Most people have never even heard of it, Myasthenia Gravis.

crossfire · May 19, 2019

Enoch07 said:
This is just one of those unfortunate strange things in life. It's not the norm.

Science can't explain why the immune system does these things sometimes.

Myself for instance. My immune system attacks the nerve receptors in my muscles, blocking the signals from my nervous system. This cause weakness, fatigue, and even paralysis occasionally (lungs twice, heart once, left leg twice, right arm once, and my throat countless times which causes any food/water/spit that I try to swallow when it happens to shoot into my lungs instead of stomach). It's a rare condition but that's my point. It exist but it's not something that's of the norm. Most people have never even heard of it, Myasthenia Gravis.

My condolences.

However, the Rh incompatibility is a "normal" thing, but a routine shot (if the insurance carriers will allow it) can minimize the damage it does. Some insurance carriers are withholding much of this "routine" preventive care to pregnant women, however. The maternal death rate has been rising, not falling.

Enoch07 · May 19, 2019

crossfire said:
My condolences.

However, the Rh incompatibility is a "normal" thing, but a routine shot (if the insurance carriers will allow it) can minimize the damage it does. Some insurance carriers are withholding much of this "routine" preventive care to pregnant women, however. The maternal death rate has been rising, not falling.

Dont get me started on insurance companies withholding. I am fully aware of their bullcrap.

That's just terrible.

crossfire · May 19, 2019

Enoch07 said:
Dont get me started on insurance companies withholding. I am fully aware of their bullcrap.

That's just terrible.

I'm not sure that the folks who are going after doctors for providing abortions are aware that this is going to cause more babies to be harmed by ABo and Rh incompatibility disease--the "routine" shot is provided whenever a pregnancy ends in either a live birth, miscarriage, or abortion. Without a doctor, this "routine" shot can't be administered, which endangers the babies carried to term in subsequent pregnancies, as it can take a couple of pregnancies for the immune response to build up and kick in.

SkepticThinker · May 21, 2019

Shad said:
Use one then. Problem solved.

You seem to have forgotten what is being discussed.

We're talking about this ...

"So if 12 blasocytes implant, it's not ok to remove 10 or 11 of them?

To which you replied such a thing was a fantasy that you weren't going to waste time responding to.
The thing is that it's not actually a fantasy and happens all the time.

Shad said:
Right to Life trumps your autonomy

No, it does not. My right to life is paramount.
I am a living, breathing, thinking human being with social connections and responsibilities, with other living children to raise to adulthood.
You want to claim that an undeveloped embryo has more rights as a human being than I do? That's it's development trumps my life?

Under your view, I have less rights than a corpse. No thanks.

Shad said:
Never said anything close to that.

You've demonstrated that there are many things you do not know about pregnancies and women's bodies. That's enough.

SkepticThinker · May 21, 2019

Shad said:
Removing humans rights from something you deem lesser just so women can have consequence free sex is appalling

Are these women having sex with each other, or are there some men involved somewhere .... ? :shrug:

SkepticThinker · May 21, 2019

Shad said:
Corpses have more rights than a fetus. Sad isn't it.

Under your view, corpses have more rights than living adult women.

Koldo · May 21, 2019

Shad said:
Nope.

You calling something a right does not make it one. Tyranny of the majority does not create a right. This just reflect an authoritarian mindset in which you need to be told what a right is by vote. That is not how rights work.

You mean the standard you are told as per your above point.

Yup.

Doubt that as you clearly favor the majority determining rights. Fallacious thinking on your part.

I just do not value dogs as much as a human as dogs are not human.

Nope. It is obvious from observation. Let me know when cats get to the moon in their own systems.

We are well above normal animals even according to science. You have merely invoked science then ignored key factors which separate humans from everything else.

Never said this so dismissed

Projection and a rant

Projection and a rant.

Projection and a rant

According to your the majority creates rights which is just tyranny of the majority and a complete failure on your part after babbling about morals and rights to understand this factor. About what I expect from the left these days.

How do you determine what is a right and what is not ?

Mister Emu · May 21, 2019

ChristineM said:
Right wingers need to take the fun out of sex, cant have liberals having fun.

How does that take the fun out of sex?

Scott C. · May 21, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Sex is good. Sex is great. It's not just to pro-create.

I agree. But, procreation is a possible outcome of sexual intercourse. A person who is not willing to accept that outcome, should it "accidentally" occur in spite of precautions, should not be having consensual sex. That goes for the man and the woman. A person who thinks they have the "right" to have sex, and a guaranteed "right" to not get pregnant is thumbing their nose at nature and I believe at God. It might happen. So if you're going to do it, accept that possibility and deal maturely, responsibly and compassionately with a difficult situation. Be strong and carry the child. The man is equally responsbile for the pregnancy and has a moral obligation to do whatever he can to lighten the load on the mother. It's seems that many people (both the mother and the father) are not willing to acknowledge that they made a mistake, caused a pregnancy and are now responsibile to bring a child into the world. "How dare you force me to give birth! I didn't ask to be pregnant and I have an inalienable right to be pregnancy free regardless of my actions!" That's not how life works.

ChristineM · May 22, 2019

Mister Emu said:
How does that take the fun out of sex?

Enoch07 targeted liberals, i counteted

When people like that advocate limiting sex then how does that not take the fun out of it?

Sex strike

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Veteran Member

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

It's all a sick freaking joke.

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

It's all a sick freaking joke.

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

It's all a sick freaking joke.

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Just one guy

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.