Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:18:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 99% of why people have sex is because it feels good. (We've had this argument
> about other animals too, and no one agrees with me, but I think you will about
> people, right?) That's all. Just because it feels good. That is the
> 'purpose' of sexual intercourse.
Right. And even from an evolutionary argument perspective, to argue that sex
is for procreation and procreation only, is to miss how subtle evolution
actually is. Humans, and many other higher animals as well, have sex a lot
more than is needed purely to procreate.
In the case of humans, that extra sex, because it's enjoyable, and the
emotional bonding that arises because of it, is what kept the primordal
caveman around and bonded with his mate, which given the long gestation and
maturity times of our progeny, ensured their survival.
The moralist who says that anything that feels good has to be by definition
bad, or shouldn't be indulged in merely to enjoy it, is denying his own
nature and ought not to have any standing.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
