Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

I can't feel morally right about contraception watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    His posts in this thread make it very hard to imagine how that's possible. :curious:
    You should take a look at his post history
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    You should take a look at his post history
    I'd rather not risk suffering brain damage.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    I'd rather not risk suffering brain damage.
    It is quite painful.
    One of my favourite ridiculous Dalek moments was when he responded to me that you cannot get PTSD from rape because it doesn't involve nearly dying.

    Truly has tunnel vision that one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    It is quite painful.
    One of my favourite ridiculous Dalek moments was when he responded to me that you cannot get PTSD from rape because it doesn't involve nearly dying.

    Truly has tunnel vision that one.
    Angry virgin syndrome, I guess.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Angry virgin syndrome, I guess.
    Eh. I wouldn't put it on being a virgin...if he is I have no idea. Think that's a bit unfair on virgin guys who I think get enough stick. It's just being a ****ty person syndrome
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I've had this argument with someone earlier. OK, I should have specified, but I believe there to be a distinction when one is life preserving and one life denying. I don't support the death penalty either .And I was making the point that we are all somewhere on the scale where we think it is wrong to 'intervene' with the process in it's entirety, of reproduction- my point is it's a continuum, there is no discrete point of objection, it's all on a scale, until you are not penetrating the woman, because that is the point where reproduction does not occur, but it's no longer because of intervention. For some people it may be 30 weeks into a pregnancy where they have a moral problem, for some it may be hours after unprotected intercourse, for me it's actual penetration with a condom, which although may not be as a grave, still makes me uneasy despite consensus wisdom. I have even been really disturbed by someone using the morning after pill.


    I'm aware about generalized points about intervening in nature, but surely we have to accept that context is relevant in just about all arguments.
    Well, each to his/her own I suppose.

    I find it hard to believe that a person would be morally problemed by having sex with a condom on the basis that without a condom new life might have grown in the womb. It's a sort of ultra catholic position from the 1950's (whether religious or not from your point of view) that I can't get my head around.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    For the millionth time, I never made the statement that anything that went against nature was wrong, context is relevant here, I didn't expect such total literal mindedness, and and I never said it was the sole reason for my problem with it.

    And I did explain, that although I forgot to point it out initially, that it is an important moral distinction to make for me, when some intervening with nature it to preserve life and some is to deny it. You can't factor that out or say it's irrelevant just because I didn't state it literally from moment one, and I did say the other thing. Doesn't mean I don't hold that view. And doesn't mean it's not hugely morally significant and can be airbrushed out of the debate.
    You said that you disagree with contraception because it interferes with nature. How can that be taken out of context? How am I taking that too literal? Why is it unjust for us to then apply that stupid statement to other aspects of daily life just to show you how ridiculous it sounds? Doesn't matter if it wasn't your sole reason, it was clearly important enough for you to mention.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    If you want to have sex then deep down you want to have children, thats the whole reason sexual attraction exists.Also, you were only brought into this world because your parents brought you into this world so you are being unfair on your potential children from not having children- if your parents hadn't chosen to have children you wouldn't be alive do you want to be alive? if so then it is immoral not to want to have children.
    No. If you want to have sex, you accept the possibility of having children and take the necessary measures to increase or decrease the likelihood.

    The last few sentences made no sense. What kind of logic is that?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Being on benefits is morally wrong?
    Did I say that?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    My initial post was going to be wordier, but I cut out a lot.

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Whereas most people have ambiguities about abortion, so that far into copulation/conception somewhere on the scale is where most people say, the interference of nature's course is wrong.
    In other words, you're appealing to nature. Why?
    You determine something as morally wrong when it negatively affects the parties involved overall (slight over-simplification here.)

    Most people are somewhere into the early stages of conception here or whatever the abortion term limit is. But, whilst I am not like that ultra-conservative American woman who thinks masturbation is wrong and should be illegal, (for me this is insanity), I do find something morally distasteful about a society that believes in endless contraceptive sex
    , bearing no apparent connection to reproduction
    Sex doesn't have to be for reproduction, it can be for pleasure, as the hormones released makes one happy (I don't know the intricacies well.)

    Yes the penis and the vagina have adapted to accommodate each other, increasing the likelihood of insemination and reproduction, but you're giving them a purpose, almost as if you're giving evolution a purpose (which is wrong.) With our sentience, we give ourselves purposes.

    Oh, and just in case you'd like to know, I'm pretty sure dolphins also have sex for pleasure, so it isn't non-existent in the animal kingdom. This also means having sex for pleasure can be natural.

    , being a 'right'
    "right" isn't applicable at all here.

    , and 'key part of life'
    it's a "key part" to many people's lives, as they clearly like it, and include it into a basis in their relationships. What's wrong with that?

    , a 'healthy sex life'
    Having sex is also healthy for one's state of mind and probably body. It is a release mechanism, and makes one happier. It can also be a form of escapism, I presume, because of the chemicals released (again, I know not the intricacies here.)

    etc etc. Gratification not security
    If they want gratification over "security" by a long-term relationship, there's nothing wrong in doing that. Stop giving them a purpose and that's quite authoritarian, as it's like your saying that's what they should do, instead of giving them a choice.

    , rootedness or happiness springs to mind. I think it's interfering with nature
    Stop appealing to nature.

    and that there is something dishonest about the sex act that goes that far
    Sex act? Sexual acts are a subcategory of sex or sexual behaviour, so isn't really relevant here. What exactly do you mean by that?

    , is done for social kudos and approval, and yet contains the barrier that basically says 'I don't want your child or your genes to mix with mine'
    Or that person doesn't want to have a child yet, and that other person would have agreed with that? That's a tad narrow-minded.

    They don't want to have a child, perhaps
    (there are numerous reasons for not wanting them)
    not that they don't want each other's genes to "mix",
    as if there's repulsion to the concept.

    If I want to gratify myself sexually, I can use fantasies and masturbation.
    But I'm sure they find sex is better, so wouldn't substitute it for less.
    And enacting out fantasies can be better in a different way.
    Mutual masturbation or sex would feel in all likelihood far better than by itself.
    People also find sex unifying and emotional.

    This has nothing to do with stopping nature,
    Stop appealing to nature.

    in the same way homosexual activity does not.
    Stop appealing to nature and don't bring something entirely irrelevant into it on that flawed premise that we should listen to nature, or what is natural.

    I am nowhere near the woman, so I am not stopping nature wheh I ejaculate.
    But by your logic, are we not lessening reproduction? Are we not (deliberately) diverting away from it? That sounds almost as bad.

    One thing I've not mentioned yet is how empty and futile contraceptive sex makes me feel anyway
    Yet many people still would like to have it, so you can't exclude them from this from an individual basis/experience.

    , just another thing bound to break up and no unity.
    You're giving them a purpose, and being like-authoritarian again. Also, in long-term relationships, it can be unifying and emotional for people. And they just want to prioritise it in life, or make it a basis, there's nothing wrong with that.

    It is less pleasurable than ******* and all about ego. It gives existential angst and a sense of drifting if you don't risk a kid and have it natural.
    That's no sex at all then
    and again, stop appealing to nature.

    It's very strange to dwell in a world where I am more morally and socially conservative than my parents
    Perhaps it's time to consider other views? Not saying you should, just to reflect and ponder other things also.

    , they'd have been more keen on me to have these contraceptive relationships, along with doctors etc, than I am.
    So? It's their choice to have sex, and there's nothing wrong with that. it doesn't harm anybody, and it's clearly an enjoyable pastime

    Even to smoke marijuana.
    Something entirely irrelevant.

    I wish authority was not like this. I hate the vanity and futility of it.
    How is the vanity always applicable?
    Where's the futility if it's enjoyable?

    The logical conclusion of the wisdom around me is just to do it endlessly with no resolution,
    Why are you giving it a resolution? Where's the resolution to it?

    if I am already to deny that many babies.
    But they're not babies yet, are they? Don't be silly. Why should non-existent things, non-existent in the fabrics of reality, take a priority?

    If that is the way fine, but I would take it all the way. If you already should have lots of sex and prevent reproduction, why have a child at all?
    Because they might eventually want to have children, for the experience or what not, and they no longer want to have the ceaseless sex, and settle down.

    This has annoyed me.

    The only reason left is some lame crap about not dying without them to look after you,
    That's incredibly narrow-minded, and offensive, and I'll be offended on behalf of everyone else too.

    and not because you actually have a moral problem with contraception.
    Because they don't? They prevent (unwanted) children, and they can still gain the pleasure from it.

    Basically, I want to know if anyone feels the same, if they can empathise with my thought process, am I missing out
    Yes, you probably are missing out.

    , what is your feelings on this paragraph and what advice do you have for me?
    Perhaps reconsider your views, as said earlier. Don't have to, just evaluate different ones and see if yours change.

    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    It doesn't. That's the problem, more sex ed, more contraception, more and more abortions

    I'll reply to this later..
    The logic is flawed there.
    Wouldn't it be?

    "That's the problem, more sex ed → more contraception → less abortions."
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Eh. I wouldn't put it on being a virgin...if he is I have no idea. Think that's a bit unfair on virgin guys who I think get enough stick. It's just being a ****ty person syndrome
    Yes. Yes they do...

    :huff:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes. Yes they do...

    :huff:
    Just be assured, not everyone actually think it's an important topic of discussion. Nor a relevant thing to judge a person on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Some very understandable thoughts , try not to get to worked up about it , in my opinion are instincts and brains are just not geared towards modern society but to reasonably sized tribes . I think this leads to some of the things you discuss.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    My initial post was going to be wordier, but I cut out a lot.



    In other words, you're appealing to nature. Why?
    You determine something as morally wrong when it negatively affects the parties involved overall (slight over-simplification here.)





    Sex doesn't have to be for reproduction, it can be for pleasure, as the hormones released makes one happy (I don't know the intricacies well.)

    Yes the penis and the vagina have adapted to accommodate each other, increasing the likelihood of insemination and reproduction, but you're giving them a purpose, almost as if you're giving evolution a purpose (which is wrong.) With our sentience, we give ourselves purposes.

    Oh, and just in case you'd like to know, I'm pretty sure dolphins also have sex for pleasure, so it isn't non-existent in the animal kingdom. This also means having sex for pleasure can be natural.



    "right" isn't applicable at all here.



    it's a "key part" to many people's lives, as they clearly like it, and include it into a basis in their relationships. What's wrong with that?



    Having sex is also healthy for one's state of mind and probably body. It is a release mechanism, and makes one happier. It can also be a form of escapism, I presume, because of the chemicals released (again, I know not the intricacies here.)



    If they want gratification over "security" by a long-term relationship, there's nothing wrong in doing that. Stop giving them a purpose and that's quite authoritarian, as it's like your saying that's what they should do, instead of giving them a choice.



    Stop appealing to nature.



    Sex act? Sexual acts are a subcategory of sex or sexual behaviour, so isn't really relevant here. What exactly do you mean by that?



    Or that person doesn't want to have a child yet, and that other person would have agreed with that? That's a tad narrow-minded.

    They don't want to have a child, perhaps
    (there are numerous reasons for not wanting them)
    not that they don't want each other's genes to "mix",
    as if there's repulsion to the concept.



    But I'm sure they find sex is better, so wouldn't substitute it for less.
    And enacting out fantasies can be better in a different way.
    Mutual masturbation or sex would feel in all likelihood far better than by itself.
    People also find sex unifying and emotional.



    Stop appealing to nature.



    Stop appealing to nature and don't bring something entirely irrelevant into it on that flawed premise that we should listen to nature, or what is natural.



    But by your logic, are we not lessening reproduction? Are we not (deliberately) diverting away from it? That sounds almost as bad.



    Yet many people still would like to have it, so you can't exclude them from this from an individual basis/experience.



    You're giving them a purpose, and being like-authoritarian again. Also, in long-term relationships, it can be unifying and emotional for people. And they just want to prioritise it in life, or make it a basis, there's nothing wrong with that.



    That's no sex at all then
    and again, stop appealing to nature.



    Perhaps it's time to consider other views? Not saying you should, just to reflect and ponder other things also.



    So? It's their choice to have sex, and there's nothing wrong with that. it doesn't harm anybody, and it's clearly an enjoyable pastime



    Something entirely irrelevant.



    How is the vanity always applicable?
    Where's the futility if it's enjoyable?



    Why are you giving it a resolution? Where's the resolution to it?



    But they're not babies yet, are they? Don't be silly. Why should non-existent things, non-existent in the fabrics of reality, take a priority?



    Because they might eventually want to have children, for the experience or what not, and they no longer want to have the ceaseless sex, and settle down.

    This has annoyed me.



    That's incredibly narrow-minded, and offensive, and I'll be offended on behalf of everyone else too.



    Because they don't? They prevent (unwanted) children, and they can still gain the pleasure from it.



    Yes, you probably are missing out.



    Perhaps reconsider your views, as said earlier. Don't have to, just evaluate different ones and see if yours change.



    The logic is flawed there.
    Wouldn't it be?

    "That's the problem, more sex ed → more contraception → less abortions."
    Oh dear. Appealing to nature has just been offered as a description of what I said, it's not been sufficiently invalidate as an argument, beyond 'stop doing it'. And as I mentioned, it's intervening to deny life-the question is simply where on the scale of copulation and conception are you, how far along that scale are you, when you set the line and say it is wrong to intervene? It's simple as that.

    The other main point I'd like to make is through that whole massive post, you have falsely attributed sentiments to me which I never espoused, a common and very irritating trick of turning something into a politicized argument instead of an objective conversation. You have attributed to me moral judgments of others, when all I stated was how it made me feel personally, and that I was odds with society. If you conflate a unique personal feeling with a moral judgement of other people en masse when it has not been stated, it probably says more about your own mindset.

    And as for the last point, no most certainly not. The whole point of more sex education and knowledge and availability of contraception is that people will know what happens if you have unprotected sex, they know how if they want to enjoy sex without having a child there is contraception wildly available, and yet contrary to all beliefs about what sex ed and contraception would cause, abortion goes up not down. So people are having more unprotected sex. Far from the sex ed demystifying sex and making it less appealing(doing what you're told not to or what is a mystery?), and the education about preventing pregnancy making sure people use condoms, unprotected intercourse goes up and up. Even if unprotected sex(and therefore abortions) was less as a percentage of all sex due to education(and I'm not convinced by this even judging by figures), can that really be justified if overall rates of it are higher, and abortions are so much higher?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildleaves)
    Some very understandable thoughts , try not to get to worked up about it , in my opinion are instincts and brains are just not geared towards modern society but to reasonably sized tribes . I think this leads to some of the things you discuss.
    You've done something there a bit annoying. Posted something that sounds very interesting and potentially insightful, but not elaborated on it. Would you mind doing so for me?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dont think copulations should even be allowed inside reproduction. Time indulging carnal pursuits is time better spent serving the community. I really wanna see all 16-24 year olds on their hands and knees physically cleaning the streets in chain gangs and first in line to so would be single teen parents - we've gotta come down hard on these *****.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.