Opinions on abortion

[Greenday]

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.

It's because you view of over-indulgence is at an extreme. You consider over-indulgence to be any sex that isn't aiming for a kid. My definition of over-indulgence is hooking up with random people, or prostitution. I don't see it as over-indulgence if two people going out have sex sometimes as compared to one person going out, looking to get laid with someone new every weekend.

[tendomentis]

It's because you view of over-indulgence is at an extreme. You consider over-indulgence to be any sex that isn't aiming for a kid. My definition of over-indulgence is hooking up with random people, or prostitution. I don't see it as over-indulgence if two people going out have sex sometimes as compared to one person going out, looking to get laid with someone new every weekend.

No, I should be clear. I don't think a couple should only have sex when they decide they want to have a child, but they should be willing to accept a pregnancy as a result of their actions too, and if they're unwilling to take that natural POSSIBLE responsibility as a result of their actions, then they should refrain at the time and demonstrate impulse control. Anything else, yes I could see as an over-indulgence.

An occasional over-indulgence is still an over-indulgence. A little cocaine usage now and then is still unhealthy. The "perfect amount" of sex would be what a responsible couple would have when they respect it for the life-creating act that it is. That is the naturally defined "perfect amount" of sex as defined by our genome.

[Seshat]

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.

Should I say, then, that your view is far closer to the ascetic than mine? Would you be happy with that phrasing instead?

Unless I (and apparently Greenday and Phoenix) am greatly misunderstanding you, you seem to be advocating celibacy except when children are desired, or at least would be happily accepted.

Your "side note" indicates that you haven't properly researched the science involved.

Incorrect. You said:

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.

I agree that the largest release occurs after climax. I attempted (and apparently failed) to point out that climax has little or no relationship with procreation. Male climax occurs equally easily in a hand, in a non-genital orifice, or in a latex sex toy. Female climax bears even less relationship with the procreative act.

I refute your assertion that the release of oxytocin 'creates a biological incentive to complete the procreative act'. I refute your assertion that this is proven by the fact that the release occurs after climax. Climax has little to do with procreation, other than being a necessary (in the male) precondition for it. Climax in the female is completely unnecessary for procreation.

I concede to your knowledge of the biochemistry involved. Just not your knowledge of the sexuality involved.

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.

Agreed. I would far prefer high quality, readily available contraceptives.

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.

Then you have completely missed my point. My point is not a question, and fun is a very minor aspect of it.

To restate my point: sex is a bonding experience, that assists in holding the tribe together. (The same can be stated for clan, family, or any other appropriate social unit.)

The bonding effect of sex is hypothesised to be the reason that human females do not have an easily detectable estrus.

If sex was primarily for procreation, I would presume that human females would have evolved (if you believe in that) or been created (if that's your belief) with easily detectable estrus. Nature (or God) is obviously quite capable of providing estrus markers.

If you're into evolution, then the fact that we evolved from creatures that do have detectable estrus shows that the lack of it is clearly an evolutionary advantage. So for humans, sex clearly has some sort of purpose that has nothing to do with procreation.

[tendomentis]

Seshat, it's getting late where I am, so rather than quote your entire post and address the points in contention, I'll try to be more succint than usual in my response.

You would be hard pressed to find a doctor in the field of human sexual behaviour who agreed with your point of view that the massage release of endorphines and oxytocin at climax does NOT create a biological incentive in human bio-chemistry to engage in sexual activity. You would also be hard pressed to find a sex therapist who agreed that a significant majority of human adults (particularly male adults) derive as much satisfaction from ejaculation in a hand (for example) as they do inside the woman they are engaged in sexual activity with. The bulk of my knowledge is in the bio-chemical processes that take place during human mating, but to that end I have done some study on the emotional responses that occur as well (since emotions can eventually be broken down into the bio-chemical processes that produce them, I thought it a prudent course of study).

The bonding effect produced between mates is a result of the oxytocin released during sex (and during breast-feeding as well creating the mother-child bond). Again, this release of oxytocin occurs AFTER climax, and as such is a by-product of sexual activity, not the primary purpose.

I apologize if my thoughts are becoming incoherent. I'm trying to get my thoughts out in as intelligible manner as possible, but this person needs sleep now.

[AFPheonix]

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.

However, Bonobos monkeys use genital manipulation as a way to help cement clan relationships, much like we use sex.
I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you to a point. Sex is a powerful act and people need to be careful with it. However, I think it is a bad idea to close the door on a legitimate medical procedure like abortion is. Yes, I'd like to see it used less often and interestingly enough, the rate at which teenagers these days get pregnant and have abortions is falling, I'm assuming due to better information dissemination through radio, internet, books, and peers.
While bearing a child to term and either keeping it or giving it up for adoption certainly is an option for most couples, it isn't a good one for others, either due to socio-economics or health. I am unwilling to deny a legitimate procedure to people in that group.

[tendomentis]

However, Bonobos monkeys use genital manipulation as a way to help cement clan relationships, much like we use sex.
I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you to a point. Sex is a powerful act and people need to be careful with it. However, I think it is a bad idea to close the door on a legitimate medical procedure like abortion is. Yes, I'd like to see it used less often and interestingly enough, the rate at which teenagers these days get pregnant and have abortions is falling, I'm assuming due to better information dissemination through radio, internet, books, and peers.
While bearing a child to term and either keeping it or giving it up for adoption certainly is an option for most couples, it isn't a good one for others, either due to socio-economics or health. I am unwilling to deny a legitimate procedure to people in that group.

That's a slippery slope, AFPheonix. Breast augmentation is also a "legitimate" medical proceedure, and in some countries (backwards though they may be), female circumcision is still considered a "legitimate" medical proceedure, enough so in fact that immigrants who adhere to such practices will "vacation" in their homeland just to have the proceedure done on their daughters. To them, the operation is completely legitimate.

And like I said, the presence of a "get out of jail free card" will prevent our species from evolving a natural solution to unwanted pregnancies. Shortcuts are useful in the short-term, but harmful to our species in the long-run.

[Seshat]

You would be hard pressed to find a doctor in the field of human sexual behaviour who agreed with your point of view that the massage release of endorphines and oxytocin at climax does NOT create a biological incentive in human bio-chemistry to engage in sexual activity.

Again, apparently I have failed to communicate my point to you. I never disputed that the euphoria of climax creates a biological incentive to engage in sex.

My only point of disagreement with you is in the purpose of sex. You claim it to be primarily procreative, I claim it to be both a procreative and bonding experience, and that the bonding occurs far more frequently than the procreation.

You would also be hard pressed to find a sex therapist who agreed that a significant majority of human adults (particularly male adults) derive as much satisfaction from ejaculation in a hand (for example) as they do inside the woman they are engaged in sexual activity with.

In that, we shall simply have to agree to disagree. I have met many people who would disagree with your point there. Probably more who would disagree than would agree: provided that they were engaged in sexual activity with the partner of their (mutual) choice.

The bonding effect produced between mates is a result of the oxytocin released during sex (and during breast-feeding as well creating the mother-child bond). Again, this release of oxytocin occurs AFTER climax, and as such is a by-product of sexual activity, not the primary purpose.

If things which occur after climax are a by-product, then fertilisation (can be up to three days later), implantation (can be up to five days later, IIRC) and childbirth (approximately nine months later) are all by-products of sexual activity.


You seem to be arguing against what you think I'm saying, not what I'm intending to say. Either I'm being unclear, or you need to read my posts when you're more fully awake.

[Boozy]

If things which occur after climax are a by-product, then fertilisation (can be up to three days later), implantation (can be up to five days later, IIRC)

Implantation rarely occurs before day 6 after fertilization. 90% implant between days 8 to 12.

[tendomentis]

Implantation rarely occurs before day 6 after fertilization. 90% implant between days 8 to 12.

You're both kinda missing the point, which is that fetilization occurs after climax (at least for the male). The fertilzation couldn't naturally take place WITHOUT the climax (again, at least for the male). Whether it starts 30 seconds or two weeks later, the climax is necessary for natural fertilization process to begin.

I understand the position where someone would want to justify sexual activity for more than just procreation, but the arguements for it come off as just too much "becasue I want to" justifications. If one can distance themselves from their biological pre-disposition to desire sex, you can see it for what it is (a biological function primarily for procreation), otherwise you are just being led by the nose by this specific natural impulse.

[Boozy]

You're both kinda missing the point...

Nah, I was not coming down on either side of this. I was just stating a fact.

I actually feel this thread has drifted to the point where abortion is no longer being discussed in any real sense.

This is more about "What is the purpose of sexual intercourse?" For example, let's say I agree with you about sex being primarily for procreation (and I'm not saying I do). That doesn't intuitively lead me to the conclusion that abortion is wrong or unnatural.

I'm generally pro-choice, but I find certain pro-life arguments to be quite persuasive. Just not this one.

[tendomentis]

Nah, I was not coming down on either side of this. I was just stating a fact.

I actually feel this thread has drifted to the point where abortion is no longer being discussed in any real sense.

This is more about "What is the purpose of sexual intercourse?" For example, let's say I agree with you about sex being primarily for procreation (and I'm not saying I do). That doesn't intuitively lead me to the conclusion that abortion is wrong or unnatural.

I'm generally pro-choice, but I find certain pro-life arguments to be quite persuasive. Just not this one.

It's easy to think that the point drifted. All I was trying to do is redirect attention to the source of the resulting concept in question (that being abortion). If the source of the conflict could be resolved, then the issue of abortion would be moot altogether.

We don't sit around debating "how to deal with the millions of tons of radioactive fallout from our world-wide nuclear conflict" because we've managed to prevent the source of that problem altogether, rendering said discussion moot. The same COULD be true in this situation if enough people could see past their cultural "brainwashing" (largely the result of westernized media than anything else, I don't really fault the individual) and address the root cause behind unwanted pregnancies, rapid propogation of STD's, and abortion.

So while some will prefer to continue endless back and forth debate of a symptom of a larger condition, I prefer to focus on and address the cause of the symptom.

To each their own I suppose.

[AFPheonix]

That's a slippery slope, AFPheonix. Breast augmentation is also a "legitimate" medical proceedure, and in some countries (backwards though they may be), female circumcision is still considered a "legitimate" medical proceedure, enough so in fact that immigrants who adhere to such practices will "vacation" in their homeland just to have the proceedure done on their daughters. To them, the operation is completely legitimate.

And like I said, the presence of a "get out of jail free card" will prevent our species from evolving a natural solution to unwanted pregnancies. Shortcuts are useful in the short-term, but harmful to our species in the long-run.

However, breast augmentation and genital mutilation are not at all like abortion, in that they do not prevent potential ill effects for the mother like abortion can. I know quite a few women who chose to abort because their bodies would not survive the process of carrying a child to term, or because the child would not have survived after birth, despite coming to full term pregnancy.
I know others who chose to carry their children to term, knowing full well that their baby would die soon after birth. Is that not potentially more cruel than stopping the pregnancy before the child had even developed a nervous system?
I applaud all of these women's choices, because it was precisely that. THEIR CHOICE. Their families, their bodies, their decision to make.

Breast augmentation is solely for cosmetic effect. It does have a bonus for women with small breasts in that by pushing the breast tissue further out, it makes diagnosis of cancers easier through traditional mammograms.
Genital mutilation does nothing therapeutically for anyone. It is merely a way for a male-dominated society to impose its will on women as second-class citizens. However, that's a tangle for another day and another thread.

In any case, your assertion that the existence of abortion will prevent other birth-control methods from coming about is flawed. Abortion has been with us since ancient times. Yet, it's presence has not prevented the creation of hormonal and mechanical birth control. Also, new inventions for the prevention of conception come out all the time. I deal with them daily in my job in a pharmacy.

[Boozy]

In any case, your assertion that the existence of abortion will prevent other birth-control methods from coming about is flawed...it's presence has not prevented the creation of hormonal and mechanical birth control.

Exactly. No woman prefers having an abortion over not getting pregnant in the first place.

The majority of women do not take the decision to terminate lightly, nor would they dream of using abortion as a primary means of birth control.

The two women I know who had abortions describe it as a heart-wrenching and difficult decision. They were by no means cavalier about it, nor did they see it as a "get out of jail free card."

[Seshat]

I understand the position where someone would want to justify sexual activity for more than just procreation, but the arguements for it come off as just too much "becasue I want to" justifications.

That's okay. I see you as attempting to justify 'because I don't want to, and I don't want anyone else to either'.

If one can distance themselves from their biological pre-disposition to desire sex, you can see it for what it is (a biological function primarily for procreation), otherwise you are just being led by the nose by this specific natural impulse.

If one can distance themselves from their biological and/or cultural predisposition to prefer abstinence, one can see sex for what it is: a biological function with many purposes. Otherwise you're just being led by the nose by either your natural - but rare - biochemistry, or your cultural bias.

Frankly, tendomentis, I see you as just as much an apologist for abstinence as you see me as an apologist for sexual activity. And I don't think abstinence is a feasible position in the abortion debate. Oh, it's a valid one: but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. And possibly (probably, IMO) never.

[tendomentis]

However, breast augmentation and genital mutilation are not at all like abortion, in that they do not prevent potential ill effects for the mother like abortion can. I know quite a few women who chose to abort because their bodies would not survive the process of carrying a child to term, or because the child would not have survived after birth, despite coming to full term pregnancy.
I know others who chose to carry their children to term, knowing full well that their baby would die soon after birth. Is that not potentially more cruel than stopping the pregnancy before the child had even developed a nervous system?
I applaud all of these women's choices, because it was precisely that. THEIR CHOICE. Their families, their bodies, their decision to make.

Breast augmentation is solely for cosmetic effect. It does have a bonus for women with small breasts in that by pushing the breast tissue further out, it makes diagnosis of cancers easier through traditional mammograms.
Genital mutilation does nothing therapeutically for anyone. It is merely a way for a male-dominated society to impose its will on women as second-class citizens. However, that's a tangle for another day and another thread.

In any case, your assertion that the existence of abortion will prevent other birth-control methods from coming about is flawed. Abortion has been with us since ancient times. Yet, it's presence has not prevented the creation of hormonal and mechanical birth control. Also, new inventions for the prevention of conception come out all the time. I deal with them daily in my job in a pharmacy.

Please note, I didn't say that the availability of abortion prevents new birth control technologies from being developed, I said it prevents our species from developing a NATURAL solution to the problem through the process of evolution.

Say, for example, that in the not too distant future, a random mutation happens that causes the female population of an island nation near Indonesia to only become fertile 1 whole week out of the year, and all the women effected become fertile THE SAME WEEK. They could enjoy as much sex as they wanted without even having to use artificial birth control for the rest of the year and only choose to allow themselve to be impregnated that one week if they chose. That would be our species natural evolution creating a solution. But as long as we depend on artificial methods, our species won't be given the chance to change on it's own. This evolutionary superior trait would be meaningless in a society that was utterly dependant on artificial methods of obtaining the same results (but the artificial methods more often than not yield negative side effects like depression and higher risk of certain types of cancers), and in a society that obtains the same results artificially, there would be no biological incentive for the subset of our species that develops this trait to grow dominant (which would eventually lead to nearly every human female possessing this trait many generations down the road). New artificial birth control methods are constantly being developed, and over time those artificial methods are found to have undesirable side effects. Allowing our species to naturally develop a solution is best LONG TERM solution.

I'm not really against abortion or birth control (I can't be, as I'm against over-population and pro-population control), but my stance against our species depressing lack of imuplse control and reliance on technology to forestall our natural evolution puts me at odds with the prevailing opinion about reliance on artificial birth control methods and abortion.

So far, everyone comes back to me thinking I'm promoting abstinence and anti-abortion. I'm not promoting those issues as much as I'm promoting other concepts (like greater impulse control and allowing natural evolution to occur) WHICH LEAD TO results like less sex and no need for abortion. You are coming from a starting point that is mired in the symptoms, and I'm trying to approach this from a standpoint that addresses the root cause or causes.

That's important to remember as we debate this.