To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7138
7137  |  7139
Subject: 
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:54:30 GMT
Viewed: 
800 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:

With all due respect to Kyle, whose credentials on the subject of sex's
"purpose" I have yet to read, this quote proposes a rather arbitrary view.
Who is Kyle to say what "sex is supposed to result" in?  Sex is supposed to
result in sex, and pregnancy sometimes occurs as well.  Abortion, in the
case of a non-sentient embryo (that is, prior to brain activity), is no more
"cowardly" than the use of a condom or the pill.  Once the embryo achieves
brain activity, the choice becomes quite a different subject.


Dave!:

I'm curious as to what your presuppostions are in this matter (Curious - not
Attacking.)  From a purely evolutionary perspective, sex is meant to result in
pregnancey and thus the transfer of genetic material to insure species survival.
If you mean that sex has its own merits and purposes quite aside from
reproduction, I tend to agree with you, but my conclusion is based on a
presupposition of creative evolution.  If you mean to imply an "otherness"
regarding the purposes of intercourse that transcend purely biological genetic
continuance, then I think that the issues of conception as a result of
intercourse implies a set of responsibilities which naturally follow from your
arguments.  To put my arguments more simply: If you freely engage in sex with
the knowledge that conception of a new life is imminently possible, then you
have freely taken upon yourself for the responsibility of care which that new
life that you have freely created requires.

IMO, you're in a philosophical pinch by asserting that the true purpose of sex
isn't really about reproduction.  Again, I agree, but what of you?  What is it
about?  If it is not about reproduction, but reproduction naturally follows,
then what is our role as creators when it does actually result?  Why in fact, do
we have sex?



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
 
(...) I kind of screwed up my wording, as you and Tim have both correctly pointed out. I addressed my actual meaning in my reply to his post, stating, in essence, that the evolutionary purpose for sex is reproduction, but reproduction can no longer (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
 
(...) Yup. (...) So? This does have, and should have, NOTHING to do with our law. From the same reasoning, we evolved for the sole 'purpose' of concentrating resources most effectively. As Neal Stephenson has put it, we are the "ultimate badass." So (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
 
(...) With all due respect to Kyle, whose credentials on the subject of sex's "purpose" I have yet to read, this quote proposes a rather arbitrary view. Who is Kyle to say what "sex is supposed to result" in? Sex is supposed to result in sex, and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR