Opinions on abortion

[tendomentis]

Tinkering is not in itself a bad thing - if we didn't have such, we'd never have all the advances made in areas like mental illness, or physical limitations, or other topics. It's the intent behind the tinkering that can make the difference as to whether or not something turns out to be a 'good' or 'bad' thing.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say that tinkering is bad. I spend more time on the overclock.net forums than I do here, and I've OC'd and tweaked the $h!t out of my machine at home (damn near necessary if you want to play Crysis on any settings other than "slideshow of death"), so I completely agree with tweaking/hacking/cheating the system whenever possible.

My comment was addressing that when one circumvents the system, one is no longer entitled to complain about the consequences. In a perfect world, when a human (either gender) has intercourse, they should be willing to accept the biologically natural consequences of that action and if technology exists to allow circumvention of said natural consequences, that human could hardly complain when that "work-around" fails to work as effectively as advertised.

I know, it's not a perfect world, and that's why we have Walgreens

If you look at my earlier posts, you would find that I am heavily dead set against over-population and pro-population control, so I'm not against birth control at all, just against people acting like entitlement-brats, however unintentional it may be.

When it comes to abortion, I always try to think how it must or would look to a more evolved race observing our actions. They would observe us courting each other, then engaging in the natural act of procreation while implementing methods to prevent procreation. So, from that standpoint, I'm against abortion as much as I am against people intentionally trying to trip themselves as they walk around. It just seems counter-intuitive. I feel a small sense of shame for our species in general when I imagine the confusion of this hypothetical "more evolved" race while they wonder why if some humans don't wish to procreate why those humans would engage in the act of procreation to begin with. I'm not against it on any religious, moral, or ethical grounds.

[Boozy]

Procreation is in itself a biological urge for many people. But from an evolutionary standpoint, the urge to engage in the act of sexual intercourse is far more ingrained.

For over a million years, our ancestors did not say to themselves, "Gee, I'd like to have a baby so that I may pass along my genes." Instead, the instinct to have intercourse was the overriding impulse. Nature then took its course, babies would be born, and our genes would pass themselves along.

Developed nations have reached the point where it isn't necessary to have more than a few children to pass along our genes; most children survive beyond childhood in the West, and most go on to have children themselves.

But our bodies have not caught up. Our genes are still telling us to fuck like rabbits. Our genes want us to have lots and lots of sex so they can have lots and lots of copies of themselves.

Sex, as a result, is one of our strongest natural urges. I don't feel that any reaction to abortion or contraception issues that involves abstinence is particularly feasible, nor do I feel that it is particularly healthy.

[tendomentis]

I didn't say we should all be celibate, but perhaps I'm just not communicating my point very well (my bad).

Just because something is a "natural urge" doesn't make it conducive to an evolving society. Technically, the urge to kill a possible sexual competitor is in our genes as well, but somehow we keep that urge relatively suppressed. Eatiing is also a "natural urge", and giving that urge free reign leads to OVER-eating and poor health.

The point I'm trying (and clearly failing) to make is that I think more self control is needed over our "natural urges" in general.

Here's a valid example: people have a hard time resisting the urge to scratch or pick at their own healing wounds despite the fact that they would heal faster if they left them alone. It's the result of some function in our genes that clearly served a purpose at one point (and may still), but yielding to that urge at the wrong time yields negative results. The same could be said for sexual activity. But while humanity in general has evolved the insight to know that picking at your scabs is detrimental to the healing process (as well as simply disgusting), we haven't as a species developed the natural insight into voluntarily restraining our mating instincts (I say "as a species" because smaller groups of humans HAVE figured this out but not our species as a whole or even in majority). Instead of developing self control over THIS natural urge, we developed imperfect work-arounds.

[Greenday]

I'm just missing the point of why we shouldn't be able to have sex for fun. Everything doesn't exist for solely one purpose. Most things in life have many purposes. Why should sex ONLY be for one purpose alone, and that purpose be reproduction?

[tendomentis]

I'm just missing the point of why we shouldn't be able to have sex for fun. Everything doesn't exist for solely one purpose. Most things in life have many purposes. Why should sex ONLY be for one purpose alone, and that purpose be reproduction?

And small children ask why they can't stay up late or have another piece of candy or play with fireworks or play ball in the house. From their perspectives, what they want would genuinely be fun, but the people that know better (generally their parents) can restrain them from acting on their impulses until they develop their own impulse control.

There's a time and place for candy, fireworks, staying up late, and playing ball, but it isn't all the time and it's almost never always whenever a person wants it. The same is true with sexual activity, but most people upon reaching "adult-hood" slow or even stop the development of their own impulse control.

As a child I liked M&M's, and wanted them any chance I could get them. As an adult, I have the ability to fill an entire room in my house with M&M's if I gave in to that childhood impulse, but I don't. This doesn't mean I don't eat M&M's anymore, but the impulse to eat M&M's doesn't over-ride my control of that impulse.

So, I'm not saying sexual activity shouldn't be fun. Our biology is geared so that we enjoy it, but over-indulgence leads to negative effects (like unwanted pregnancies, rapid propogation of STD's, etc). Increased self-control over these impulses wouldn't eradicate such negative effects in their entirety, but it would diminish them.

[Seshat]

Actually, the desire to have intercourse is more of a bonding thing than a procreation thing. Yes, the purpose of that desire is procreation, but the desire is a social bonding tool.

Having sex satisfies a biological imperative, bonds the tribe together, and bonds the partners together. It also has a small chance of producing a child, many months later.

If the sole evolutionary purpose of sex was procreation, we'd be a species that goes 'into heat', not a species where determining whether a woman is fertile requires sensitive thermometers and mucous testing equipment.

I feel a small sense of shame for our species in general when I imagine the confusion of this hypothetical "more evolved" race while they wonder why if some humans don't wish to procreate why those humans would engage in the act of procreation to begin with.

Because intercourse is not solely for procreation, it has other purposes as well.

The point I'm trying (and clearly failing) to make is that I think more self control is needed over our "natural urges" in general.

And I say to you (a paraphrase of) what I said to someone else earlier in this forum: why should your opinions rule my behaviour? For that matter, why should my opinions rule your behaviour?

Oh, to some degree we need social conventions and rules. Rules for things like property ownership, assault, and such are part of keeping the tribe together. But I don't see any reason why your opinions should affect whether or not my husband and I have sex, nor how frequently. Nor do I see a reason why my opinions should affect whether you're celibate or not.

Asceticism is a valid philosophical position, but it's not my philosophical position. I'm for moderation, not asceticism.

[tendomentis]

And I say to you (a paraphrase of) what I said to someone else earlier in this forum: why should your opinions rule my behaviour? For that matter, why should my opinions rule your behaviour?

Oh, to some degree we need social conventions and rules. Rules for things like property ownership, assault, and such are part of keeping the tribe together. But I don't see any reason why your opinions should affect whether or not my husband and I have sex, nor how frequently. Nor do I see a reason why my opinions should affect whether you're celibate or not.

The oft-cited, false, and so called "omni-logical" point of view; that a particular viewpoint/opinion is as valid as all others. Unfortunately, to even hold to the omni-logical view, you have to break it simply by stating that your opinion that someone else's opinion shouldn't rule your behaviour is superior to a viewpoint that says otherwise. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. Subtle yes, but still profound.

From a strictly evolutionary point of view, the opinion of one (or the few) must dictate the actions of the many. If humanity had evolved giving all viewpoints equal validity, we would never have evolved into the pseudo-civilized species that we are presently (we likely would have died off en masse). Your "allowance" for social conventions is just more proof of that. Somewhere along the line, a minority of a group decided that killing off sexual competitors was "wrong" and enforced that viewpoint on a larger group of (likely) unwilling "lesser evolved" proto-humans. This change yielded positive results. That's called progress. Not all forced changes yield positive results, but in the course of our species' evolution we determine the best route to take through trial and error.

The majority of our species presently doesn't wish to use greater impulse control over our natural urge to procreate or engage in the act of procreation (which is what sexual activity is, despite your opinion that it is a social bonding function). The primary result of sexual intercourse is the expellation of sperm into a female for the purpose of reproduction. A secondary effect is the release of oxytocin which creates the "bonding effect" with the mating pair, but the largest release of oxytocin only occurs AFTER climax, thereby creating a biological incentive to complete the procreative act. One comes before the other (no pun intended, really).

Overuse of the procreative act for PURELY pleasurable reasons (and not procreation and pleasure) yields negative results as clearly demonstrated in our current society. In the end, as always, it will take a minority enforcing a new standard of increased impulse control to continue progress of our species, and in 10,000 years our descendants will look back at us with the same incredulity that we look at our ancestors who regarded killing off sexual competitors as perfectly natural.

That's evolution for ya'.

[AFPheonix]

No, actually Seshat is right on the money in that sex is used not just for procreation in our species. There's a reason why human females have a hidden estrus. If we were meant to have sex only for procreation, females would be more like dogs or other animals with a very obvious estrus cycle to indicate to males when the chance of conception is highest.
In our case, it is hypothesized that females developed the hidden estrus to help keep males coming back to her with food gifts in exchange for sex, especially since our young require a lot of resources for a long time.

I do appreciate where you're coming from, and I am pro-choice in order to accommodate opinions like yours. If you do not wish to have an abortion or use contraception, be my guest. If you choose to take advantage of a valid surgical procedure or partake of a valid drug regimen, well, that's all right by me, too.

[tendomentis]

No where am I saying that sex is ONLY for procreation, just as food isn't ONLY for nutrition. Eating food that tastes good releases endorphines that help act as a natural stress relief, but that effect is secondary to the primary objective which is nutrition.

The same condition exists for sex. The endorphines and oxytocin that are released during sex serve a purpose of their own, but it is secondary to the primary objective which is procreation. When we put more emphasis and importance on the secondary objective, it creates negative results.

In none of my posts have I said sex is ONLY for procreation, but our species is still so led by our biological urges that the majority can't see through their desire for sex to see the inefficiency of it when used for pleasure ONLY (just as using it for procreation ONLY isn't efficient either).

There isn't any harm in self regulation of our sex drive to use sexual activity for procreation and pleasure at the same time, just a general lack of desire to self regulate to that degree. Hopefully our species will evolve an ability to self regulate this natural urge like the others already under self regulation, but I don't expect it anywhere even close to within my lifetime.

When it comes down to it, the over-indulgence in sexual activity without any or a minimum of impulse control is a vestigial evolutionary trait of our species not unlike other more primatalogical traits that we share with bonobos. Most of our more recent evolutionary progress as a species came about from using our intellect to overcome our more animalistic urges, and this trait will be no different in the end.

I think I should be clear that I'm not brining any moral, ethical, or so called religious viewpoints into my statements. My point of view is based solely on what anthropological studies I've done.

[Greenday]

Ok, what if a boyfriend and a girlfriend, who plan to one day have babies, just not in the near future, have sex every now and then, but the girlfriend gets pregnant. The timing is horrible, because they are both young and in college, and can't afford a child at the time. The emotional trauma could be endless for them, especially for the woman, to carry the baby to term, and then give it away. Having an abortion would cause a lot less trauma for the parents, and the parents would be able to wait until they could actually support a child before having one.

[tendomentis]

Ok, what if a boyfriend and a girlfriend, who plan to one day have babies, just not in the near future, have sex every now and then, but the girlfriend gets pregnant. The timing is horrible, because they are both young and in college, and can't afford a child at the time. The emotional trauma could be endless for them, especially for the woman, to carry the baby to term, and then give it away. Having an abortion would cause a lot less trauma for the parents, and the parents would be able to wait until they could actually support a child before having one.

The problem could have been avoided entirely had they used a little more impulse control. The best solution targets the source of the problem, not the consequences, and as long as an "easy out" exists, no human would have an incentive to develop better control.

In the same way that an infant will never learn to walk if the mother carries it ALL the time, humanity won't be able to develop internal controls to target this problem if an artificial "get out of jail free card" exists. Our species won't evolve so long as we depend on technological crutches to get us out of trouble. Technology should be there to assist, not supplant our natural evolution.

So, in the case you present, the solution would be for the woman to carry the baby to a natural term (be it in a result of a viable birth or not). In the event of a viable birth, the parents would have the option to keep the child or to give it up for adoption. This is the risk they took when they engaged in a procreative act, and if they are adult enough to engage in sexual intercourse, they should also be adult enough to deal with the NATURAL results (this goes all the way back to my original post on cheaters not being eligible to complain). They may have hardship because of their decision and the ensuing results, but it also serves to teach that couple and others who might be in a similar situation (or just prior to beginning a sexual relationship) to re-evaluate sex and treat it with a little more respect.

That isn't meant to sound cold, I myself have been in this position before.

[Seshat]

The oft-cited, false, and so called "omni-logical" point of view; that a particular viewpoint/opinion is as valid as all others. Unfortunately, to even hold to the omni-logical view, you have to break it simply by stating that your opinion that someone else's opinion shouldn't rule your behaviour is superior to a viewpoint that says otherwise. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. Subtle yes, but still profound.

I see your point, but I don't think I'm hypocritical in my view. I feel that you're perfectly entitled to hold the view that your opinion should influence my behaviour, or in the more general case, you're entitled to hold any view contrary to my own, including the view that one person's views should rule another's behaviour.

I simply choose to disagree with that view.

As for your view that asceticism is the next stage of human evolution: I disagree with you. Since we have such a fundamental disagreement, I doubt we'll manage to agree on the abortion issue.

I accept and understand (I believe) your ascetic views. I simply disagree with them. As I stated earlier, I think moderation is more appropriate for humanity than asceticism.


As a side note: the endorphin rush for the male occurs after ejaculation, yes. But the ejaculation can be anywhere: not just in a position to fertilise a woman. The endorphin rush for the female occurs at any random point, not after fertilisation, nor after the release of an egg. So in my opinion, your point about the timing of the endorphin rush is negated.

[Greenday]

The problem could have been avoided entirely had they used a little more impulse control. The best solution targets the source of the problem, not the consequences, and as long as an "easy out" exists, no human would have an incentive to develop better control.

This is the risk they took when they engaged in a procreative act, and if they are adult enough to engage in sexual intercourse, they should also be adult enough to deal with the NATURAL results (this goes all the way back to my original post on cheaters not being eligible to complain). They may have hardship because of their decision and the ensuing results, but it also serves to teach that couple and others who might be in a similar situation (or just prior to beginning a sexual relationship) to re-evaluate sex and treat it with a little more respect.

So a little impulse control means absolutely NO sex unless it's to make a kid? Cause if you are having sex more often than not, getting pregnant shouldn't be too big a surprise. But when it's an every now and then thing, it'd definitely be a huge surprise. Heck, if a couple can keep it down to an every now and then thing, I'd call that a crapload of restraint.

Yea, I definitely would call abortion a way of dealing with those natural results. Wearing condoms, taking birth control correctly, is a very respectful way to treat sex. And ruining people's lives is definitely a HORRIBLE way to teach people a lesson.

[tendomentis]

So a little impulse control means absolutely NO sex unless it's to make a kid? Cause if you are having sex more often than not, getting pregnant shouldn't be too big a surprise. But when it's an every now and then thing, it'd definitely be a huge surprise. Heck, if a couple can keep it down to an every now and then thing, I'd call that a crapload of restraint.

Yea, I definitely would call abortion a way of dealing with those natural results. Wearing condoms, taking birth control correctly, is a very respectful way to treat sex. And ruining people's lives is definitely a HORRIBLE way to teach people a lesson.

Ruining people's lives? The couple in question chose to engage in sexual activity knowing full well what could happen. If you consider a child "ruining lives", then the couple in question ruined their own lives.

Oh, and going from mass murder off hundreds of people a month to say only one or two a year still doesn't negate the negative results of the action itself, so your concept of keeping it to just "now and then" isn't valid.

Abortion is a way of dealing with the results, yes, but not a way of diminishing the root cause (which should be the focus). A good knowledge of the undo function in a word processing application is no replacement for good typing skills to begin with (I trust you see the analogy).

[tendomentis]

I see your point, but I don't think I'm hypocritical in my view. I feel that you're perfectly entitled to hold the view that your opinion should influence my behaviour, or in the more general case, you're entitled to hold any view contrary to my own, including the view that one person's views should rule another's behaviour.

I simply choose to disagree with that view.

As for your view that asceticism is the next stage of human evolution: I disagree with you. Since we have such a fundamental disagreement, I doubt we'll manage to agree on the abortion issue.

I accept and understand (I believe) your ascetic views. I simply disagree with them. As I stated earlier, I think moderation is more appropriate for humanity than asceticism.


As a side note: the endorphin rush for the male occurs after ejaculation, yes. But the ejaculation can be anywhere: not just in a position to fertilise a woman. The endorphin rush for the female occurs at any random point, not after fertilisation, nor after the release of an egg. So in my opinion, your point about the timing of the endorphin rush is negated.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find someone with a hypocritical view who thinks their own view is hypocritical.

I am not advocating asceticism, which is complete abstinence from "worldly pleasures". I'm all for the pleasure in sex, but not the removal of the procreative act from the process. One naturally accompanies the other.

I'm a cheerleader for self-control, specifically applied to human sexual behaviour.

Your "side note" indicates that you haven't properly researched the science involved. Both the male and female release endorphines during intercourse, but both the man and woman secrete the largest dosage (which temporarily overwhelms the nervous system and creates that "high" feeling) of endorphines at the moment of climax. The difference is that the male has a refractory period immediately following before he can climax again, while the female could experience another almost immediately after the first. The secretion of oxytocin is more important to the emotional makeup of the sexual activity than the endorphines though as it creates the "bonding" that takes place between the male and female. I never said that the woman experiences the largest dosage at fertilization (so not sure why you thought I did), but at the moment of climax, all the muscles inside the female genitalia contract in such a way to give the highest possible change of the movement of the male's sperm into the female's reproductive system.

As I said in an earlier post, my view of abortion is simple. It's the same view I would have of people intentionally tripping themselves as they walk around. It's counter-intuitive and a completely lopsided manner to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

So far, the only counter-arguement to this particular viewpoint are statements questioning why sex can't be had "just for fun", which can't by default be argued from a strictly objective point of view as an overwhelming majority of human adults desire sex, so a position arguing FOR an over-indulgence in sexual activity is automatically biased.