Why I think I have become a supporter of Roe V Wade

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 49
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Like forcing a woman to labor for 9 months?
Telling someone they must give up a portion of their income and telling someone they must allow their body to be used as a cocoon while another human being moves into it are not the same thing.

#32
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
Do you not know how natural selection and evolution work?

The drive we have towards orgasm is in fact more than any other species except perhaps dolphins and that is linked also to why our species took over the planet, intelligence-aside.

Due to the sex drive and experience of humans being so pleasurable and addictive, we not only reproduced on the higher end of the spectrum vs our death rate but we had a selfish reason to be genuinely loyal and attached to the one we regularly had sex with.

The reason why we transitioned towards monogamy wasn't just logical, it was biochemical, that feeling of 'love' when you are experiencing euphoria from being in love with someone is linked inextricably to how unique you find (even potential) sex that leads to reproduction with them. This sounds extremely superficial and ridiculous at first because some fall in love long before they have sex but I am talking about potential to reproduce, not sex alone.

When someone has many traits, not just looks, that you see as something that you'd want to mix with your genes and produce a being with this is actually the core subsconsious drive that leads us to find people who appear, act, move, talk, listen etc a certain way as far sexier than others. There's no universal scale but generally speaking females who are heterosexual seek taller, mentally-stimulating men who are passionate as their intial general thing to go for (then factors that separate the long-term from the short-term come into play) and males who are heterosexual generally seek out females who are built whatever 'medium' is, who are entertained by them and appreciate them when they (the men) are very passionate about something (and again, then factors that are long-term to short-term come into play). 

Obviously I just was generic, people have types that deviate from the norm. Some like very dominant bossy women who are built this way or that, some like very passive, patient men who listen and reassure well, often an extremely bad experience with a certain type can strongly lead to one's type altering slightly.

The core drive to have sex with someone though, is rooted entirely in a relentless need to feel euphoria. You will literally orgasm at the peak/hardest with someone who is truly your type and who you feel 100% appreciate by as well (though to be appreciated itself is part of the type for both genders, generally).

In the past, those who were less driven to sex had their gene pool deteriorate over time.
Topic's author
#33
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Bones
If abstinence unless wanting to concieve was practiced by the vast majority of Americans, or even if it was preached by the vast majority of Roe V Wade opponents, then it could be argued to be decent advice.

However, we (assuming your American) live in a country where 97% of the population doesn't wait until marraige.

If seatbelts were only worn by 3% of the population, then it wouldn't be considered good advice to reduce accident rates because most of the advocates (assuming they were common as opponents of Roe V Wade) for encouraging seatbelt wearing would be hypocrites since most of them don't follow their own advice and wear seatbelts.

Just as I want all seatbelt advocates to wear seatbelts, I want all people advocating for abstinence to be abstinent themselves.  Most of them aren't.
#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you not know how natural selection and evolution work?
Please explain why you felt the need to lecture me on sex so that I can explain to you what part of the conversation you completely missed. Thanks.

#35
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Double_R
The purpose of sex drive is to expand the gene pool.
Demonstrate this claim. Who decided this?
The evolutionary reason we have sex is to reproduce to multiply the gene pool, in hopes of creating a useful mutation. 
#36
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
If abstinence unless wanting to concieve was practiced by the vast majority of Americans, or even if it was preached by the vast majority of Roe V Wade opponents, then it could be argued to be decent advice.

However, we (assuming your American) live in a country where 97% of the population doesn't wait until marraige.
Ok so consider this, imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law. Does this mean we lift the law to allow rape? After all, no ones following the law so might was well let em loose. 


#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
I don't think he's gonna realise what you're saying is true.

I don't agree with you on being pro-abstinence because most people don't enjoy masturbation enough to long-term last like that until they want children and even after that.

I do agree with you on why orgasms and sexual-based love relationships evolved especially in our species.
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
The evolutionary reason we have sex is to reproduce to multiply the gene pool, in hopes of creating a useful mutation.
You didn’t answer the question. You claimed it was non controversial that the purpose to sex is procreation to which I challenged you to support that claim. You didn’t because you can’t, because evolution doesn’t  have a purpose, no one is sitting down and mapping out how our species will evolve.

Purpose isn’t an inherent attribute, it’s attributed by a thinking agent. If your purpose to having sex is to procreate then good for you and by extension good for the survival of the human species, that’s doesn’t make procreation “the purpose” of sex to anyone but you.

Your link is backwards. Throughout most of human history we didn’t have sex in order to procreate, we procreated as a result of our enjoyment of having sex. There were plenty of other species who didn’t have such a desire, they all died off. In fact 99.9% of every species that’s ever walked the face of the earth is extinct.

So back to the beginning, the desire to have sex is basic human nature, yet your position is that sex should only be for procreation. How do you square denying such a basic element of human nature, especially one for which we would not otherwise be here?
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law.
A country of 97% rapists wouldn’t outlaw rape.
#40
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Double_R
The evolutionary reason we have sex is to reproduce to multiply the gene pool, in hopes of creating a useful mutation.
You didn’t answer the question. You claimed it was non controversial that the purpose to sex is procreation to which I challenged you to support that claim. You didn’t because you can’t, because evolution doesn’t  have a purpose, no one is sitting down and mapping out how our species will evolve.
I'm surprised you're really contesting this. Tell me, what is the point of a penis and vagina. 

So back to the beginning, the desire to have sex is basic human nature, yet your position is that sex should only be for procreation. How do you square denying such a basic element of human nature, especially one for which we would not otherwise be here?
But the reason that we have that basic human nature is to procreate. If it was not in the interest of humans to procreate, no they would likely not have developed sex and died off. 

imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law.
A country of 97% rapists wouldn’t outlaw rape.
And that makes rape moral?

Do you want to debate me about abortion? I'm not a fan of this forum back and forth. 
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Bones
I'm surprised you're really contesting this. Tell me, what is the point of a penis and vagina. 
I’m surprised you don’t understand what it means to ask what “the point” of something is.

And that makes rape moral?
Nope, never said that. Never implied it either.

Do you want to debate me about abortion? I'm not a fan of this forum back and forth.
I’d be open to it. When I began pushing back on your use of “purpose” I expected you might go down the God path, to which we would have found our fundamental disagreement. If you really are going to hold to this idea that the purpose of sex is procreation without invoking the supernatural then I would certainly take that debate.


#42
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Bones
 If it was not in the interest of humans to procreate, no they would likely not have developed sex and died off. 
Sexual reproduction predates human existence by a very, very, very long time. We didn't 'develop' sex. 
Topic's author
#43
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Bones
 imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law. Does this mean we lift the law to allow rape?
If 97% of men were rapists, it would be political suicide for any politican to want to ban rape to begin with, and that politician would porbably be a hypocrite if they tried to ban rape because they would probably be a rapist.  Thankfully rape is very rare so it can be banned, but frequency and harm of an action determines how illegal it can be.

The frequency of an action must be rare and the harm from the action must be intense to merit a punishment.

If rape (as harmful as it is) was done by 97% of men, then people trying to ban rape would be viewed a lot like vegans are viewed in a society where 98% of us are responsible for the death of animals for food.  Banning rape in this hypothetical society would sound a lot like banning meat in this society.  If rape was done by 97% of men, then these men would be arguing that they get the right to rape females and that female consent is irrelevent and that females don't have any value.  They would argue women would be like animals.  I'm not saying this view is right, but people act in accordance with their culture.  If your culture has 97% of men that commit rape, then you are going to be fine with rape.  Thankfully, that is not our culture.

If the harm is intense and the frequency is common, then banning it gets viewed like banning killing animals for food, where even the people not harming others by not raping would be fine with rape being legal because they would have been exposed to it.  They may advocate for ending rape, but it rape was done by 97% of men regularly, then all the non raping men can do is not rape on a personal level.

If the harm is not intense, frequency is irrelevant.  It can be legal.

It is only when harm is intense and frequency is rare that an action can be banned.
#44
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Double_R
I'm surprised you're really contesting this. Tell me, what is the point of a penis and vagina. 
I’m surprised you don’t understand what it means to ask what “the point” of something is.
Well that's a fundamental disagreement then. I think that sex is for reproduction - I think that this is true both biologically and evolutionarily. 


imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law.
A country of 97% rapists wouldn’t outlaw rape.
And that makes rape moral?
Nope, never said that. Never implied it either.
Well you imply that a country with 97% of its people who want to rape should not outlaw rape. My understanding is that morality is not a democracy. 

Do you want to debate me about abortion? I'm not a fan of this forum back and forth.
I’d be open to it. When I began pushing back on your use of “purpose” I expected you might go down the God path,
I'm an atheist. I hate religion so no I would not have gone down that path. As for the debate, I'll initiate one in the near future. 
#45
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
 imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law. Does this mean we lift the law to allow rape?
If 97% of men were rapists, it would be political suicide for any politican to want to ban rape to begin with, and that politician would porbably be a hypocrite if they tried to ban rape because they would probably be a rapist. 
But you're asserting that we should ban rape on the basis that it is the general consensus. I disagree, I would ban rape because it is immoral and unproductive for the maximisation of one's well being. 

If rape (as harmful as it is) was done by 97% of men, then people trying to ban rape would be viewed a lot like vegans are viewed in a society where 98% of us are responsible for the death of animals for food.  Banning rape in this hypothetical society would sound a lot like banning meat in this society.
But does this make rape moral? It doesn't does it.


Topic's author
#46
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Bones
I would ban rape because it is immoral and unproductive for the maximisation of one's well being. 
You measure immortality by 2 things that both have to be met:

1) Is a victim produced?
2) Is it rare?

If a victim is produced, but it is as common as meat eating, then it wouldn't be viewed by this hypothetical society as immoral.  People should be judged by the standards of their culture, not ours.  Otherwise, George Washington was an evil dude because he was responsible for the torture of the animals he ate and was responsible for owning hundreds of slaves.  But this was a product of Washington's society, so that makes what he did understandable.

When your culture is 97% rapists, your going to advocate for rape being legal and your going to think it's moral.  That's how culture works.  In a culture where 97% of the population rapes regulary, it gets viewed as similar to killing animals for food.  Anyone that objects in this society would get viewed similar to how we view militant vegans in this society.  I'm just glad rape isn't that common so we all get to be anti rape.  If 97% of men raped regularly, nobody would see it as immoral.  You need to know the standards of your culture.
#47
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
You measure immortality by 2 things that both have to be met:

1) Is a victim produced?
2) Is it rare?
Number 2 is completely incorrect. Killing someone with a pencil whilst yodelling is rare, bu this doesn't make it moral. 
#48
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
disproving his number 2 requires the very opposite to what you did. You mean something like 'cheating on a spouse isn't that rare and yet it is immoral'.
#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
So for as long as the gene pool is expanded, then abortion is not necessarily counter-productive.

The moral argument isn't about procreation.

The moral argument is about the moral argument.....Often relative to a hypothetical, super-natural concept.