Atlas Sexual Morality Poll

[America Needs R'hllor]

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok: Agree, though keeping it to a minimum is good.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another: Very much agree, it's natural and can prevent unnecessary divorces.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further: Agree very much, it's completely ok and the fact that many people disagree shows that Atlas is a pretty ancient place in mindset about these things. Or in short, full of prudes

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse: Disagree, sometimes relationships can turn so toxic it harms the child.

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse: I guess they can do it if both sides agree, but I'd be very uncomfortable with it and I'm afraid that one side will always kinda be less into it and it will, in the end, hurt the relationship.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship: I guess they can, but again, I wouldn't be comfortable with it and I believe that for reasons of preventing potential abuse and not setting a precedent, it shouldn't be legalized as a formal way of marriage.

7) I support abortion rights: Not late term etc, but really, no one wants late term abortions so solidly yes.

[America Needs R'hllor]

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse: Disagree, sometimes relationships can turn so toxic it harms the child.

I guess it's kind of subjective, but I would consider "so toxic it harms the child" to be emotionally abusive.

Depends on how you define it. Both sides could be perfectly decent people, but just don't really get along well. It doesn't even have to be arguments- it could be mutual coldness and lethargy. In that case, isn't it better to split up, both for the parents and children?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

You moved so fast from posturing about facts to an emotional appeal I got whiplash. Fuzzy Bear's post was rational, you did nothing to attack his logic or dispute his facts and yet you accuse the pro-life side of only being concerned with feelings. Good grief.

Because believing that embryos are human beings who suffer like the rest of us and whose termination is murder is a belief. The fact that back-alley abortions can be very dangerous and that being forced to carry a child isn't a fun experience is not disputed by anyone. So yes, the pro-life side has no evidence to back up its belief that embryos are persons- it's merely a belief.

You have a right to believe that, but I'm not going to stand by when real humans suffer because of beliefs, whether they're women, LGBTQ folks or members of minority religions. Also, Fuzzy's post is ridiculous- "a stage of human development you and I were once at" is an emotional appeal if I ever saw one, you can claim it about the stage of a sperm just like you can claim it about an embryo.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

You moved so fast from posturing about facts to an emotional appeal I got whiplash. Fuzzy Bear's post was rational, you did nothing to attack his logic or dispute his facts and yet you accuse the pro-life side of only being concerned with feelings. Good grief.

Because believing that embryos are human beings who suffer like the rest of us and whose termination is murder is a belief. The fact that back-alley abortions can be very dangerous and that being forced to carry a child isn't a fun experience is not disputed by anyone. So yes, the pro-life side has no evidence to back up its belief that embryos are persons- it's merely a belief.

You have a right to believe that, but I'm not going to stand by when real humans suffer because of beliefs, whether they're women, LGBTQ folks or members of minority religions. Also, Fuzzy's post is ridiculous- "a stage of human development you and I were once at" is an emotional appeal if I ever saw one, you can claim it about the stage of a sperm just like you can claim it about an embryo.

The lack of self awareness here is kind of funny. Like you go from criticizing emotional appeals to making them in the same paragraph. Like I said in my last post, I'm getting whiplash .

Now that that's out of the way, there are a few major issues with your argument:

1) You get your facts wrong on a couple of points. First, you criticize us for believing embryos "suffer like the rest of us". Fetesus do feel pain (around 30 weeks I think) and neither I nor Fuzzy claimed that embryos did. You either mistakenly believe that fetuses can't feel pain or misrepresented mine and Fuzzy's position. Second, you can't claim a sperm is a stage of your development because it isn't you. My daughter is genetically unique and distinct from me going back to when she was an ovum, while my sperm is not.

2) You're playing fast and loose with the words "fact" and "belief". We are discussing "personhood". It is a "fact" that someone is or isn't a person according to a definition of personhood, but I dispute that there is a single definition of personhood that is a "fact" on the same level as "2+2=4".

Rather, I posit:

a) Being a member of homo sapiens sapiens should be sufficient to meet the definition of personhood, regardless of stage of development or dependence on others to stay alive

b) Pro choicers (with a few exceptions like Peter Singer who bite the bullet) are being inconsistent when denying fetuses personhood either because a fetus meets their definition of personhood or because their definition excludes classes of people that they treat as non-persons.

This leads to my last point

3) You keep talking about "real humans" and "facts" and "beliefs" about personhood without ever stating your definition or why it is factual. Would you mind doing so?

You see, that's the point. No one actually has an abortion after 30 weeks. Maybe except for a few exceedingly rare cases, and even they mostly in cases of danger to the woman's life. I oppose late-term abortions because, indeed, that's the stage the whole debate about personhood gets blurry. My problem is with "pro-lifers" like ExtremeConservative and others who oppose any form of abortion, which is ridiculous, and I see from your post you might agree with me. In the first trimester, there are no beliefs and beliefs, there are indeed facts and beliefs. And that's when the overwhelming majority of abortions occur:

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America Needs R'hllor]

5. Agree, regardless of how their spouse feels about the subject.

wow.

I really hope he means that as "by law", lol.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Wow.... 1, 2, and 3 have fewer Disagrees than 4 and 6. Bad morals, Atlas.

This level of lofty judgement and utter confidence that your traditional morals are better than everyone else's "bad morals" won't actually convince anyone.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Wow.... 1, 2, and 3 have fewer Disagrees than 4 and 6. Bad morals, Atlas.

This level of lofty judgement and utter confidence that your traditional morals are better than everyone else's "bad morals" won't actually convince anyone.

If morals aren’t at least somewhat universal, then what’s the point? Do I believe my morals are the best? Yes, that’s why they are my morals...

I believe there's a difference between morals like "don't cheat on your partner", which are, indeed, universal, and personal morals like "I'd not get together with a person just to have sexual intercourse with nothing else expected". The latter is really a decision and it's definitely not your or anyone else's place to tell everyone else what is moral and what isn't in this regard.