Live Action video #3: Infanticide in AZ: “They will not resuscitate”
Today, Live Action released the third video in its new investigative series, “Inhuman: Undercover in America’s late-term abortion industry.”
We have already seen willingness by personnel at an abortion clinic in New York and in Washington, D.C. to either kill abortion survivors outright, or let them asphyxiate.
In the video released today, a counselor at Family Planning Associates Medical Group in Phoenix, Arizona, tells Live Action’s pregnant investigator she can forgo having her preborn baby injected (through her abdomen) with a drug (Digoxin) to kill him or her, in which case, “It’s possible that there may be movement as they’re taking out the fetus.” And in which case, “They will not resuscitate.” Perhaps more horrifying is that a baby still alive could be aborted in parts:
Investigator: So if they use the suction, then they – there’s possible movement when it comes out?
Counselor: Yeah, and sometimes after – but it doesn’t – it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will come out whole. ‘Cause they use suction, plus they use instruments…. But Digoxin is probably the best thing for it. That way there’s no suffering. Ok?
There is plenty of evidence that a preborn baby has the capability to feel excruciating pain by 20 weeks of age.
The counselor also makes an interesting statement, “Usually it [the movement] stops on its own.” How, otherwise, is the movement stopped?
When the pregnant investigator asks what to do if she delivers her baby in the car on the way to the clinic, and “it’s moving and stuff,” the abortionist, Dr. Laura Mercer, advises her to “keep heading this direction,” which would be to drive the baby to his or her certain death – unless the clinic is equipped with a neonatal intensive care unit – not.
Mercer describes in animated cold detail how the baby is drawn and quartered…
People seem to gloss over this stuff. We’re talking about dismembering babies. Imagine if we were talking about dismembering puppies or baby seals. That would disturb people. But pulling the arms and legs off babies doesn’t seem to bother Mercer in the slightest.
Mercer also lies about fetal development, stating a 23-weeker “doesn’t even look like a baby yet,” which is ludicrous.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/BtpdYlcbVRQ[/youtube]
Live Action’s third investigative piece is currently headlined on Drudge.
Great videos….
I pray for all women (and men) to wake up and watch these videos. I hope these videos get shown in a sex-ed classes – they are perfect: informative, educational and not-too-graphic. These videos would provide kids with the some education about reproduction and “reproductive health.”
5 likes
Wow. Just wow.
4 likes
http://hopeafterabortion.com/?page_id=223
The above was interesting in relating how ‘choice’ or even more laughably as it is now being called, ‘women’s health,’ increases suicide rates dramatically. Ireland’s Adminstrators are trying to legalize it on the grounds that ‘choice’ actually prevent’s suicide. It not only doesn’t, it increases.
9 likes
From the report –
The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one. Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly show, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.
Another report, same outcome – correlation, not causation.
7 likes
I thought you were against sex-ed Tyler, apart from ‘No! Don’t do it. It doesn’t exist before marriage. Nothing to see here.’?
7 likes
I am against the many current “sex-ed” classes which are basically “how to use contraception and get an abortion” education classes. These so-called ”sex-ed” classes treat sex as recreation and are therefore not truly teaching the kids about the consequences of sex. Sex is meant to result in a pregnancy – avoiding this reality means that these “sex-ed” class are about soliciting business for PP and drug companies and not about educating the youth about sex. If they can’t teach about sex appropriately they shouldn’t teach it at all. By not teaching at all each parent is free to teach their own children about sex. Also I am concerned that many sex-ed classes are taught to children who are too young and even under the age of consent to even engage in sex. In my opinion, children under the age of consent should not be taught about sex.
7 likes
“Sex is meant to result in a pregnancy” – that is complete and utter nonsense.
“If they can’t teach about sex appropriately they shouldn’t teach it at all.” – fully, honestly and factually is appropriate.
“children under the age of consent should not be taught about sex” – yet many of those do have sex, sex-ed or not. And they are at greater risk if they lack knowledge.
6 likes
I showed a Lila Rose video last night in my religious ed/sex education class. Yet another group of young people that have never heard of Lila Rose and Live Action, but have now.
I told my students that it is their generation that will end abortion and that I have faith in them.
I told them to Be Not Afraid.
15 likes
Reality is a prime example of WHY we shouldn’t let the tobacco industry give smoking education classes, nor let the abortion industry give ‘sex ed’ classes. Reality has swallowed their marketing, hook, line, and as I like to say, STINKER.
Sex IS about pro-creation, but being mammals with big brains and a complex social structure, abortion industry promoters have very successfully convinced more than a generation that sex is just for fun and only those pesky lower animals actually use it to reproduce. Reality has really bought what they are selling, and each day that we let Planned Parenthood in our schools, another mini-reality gets his young impressionable mind twisted. If children are having sex younger and younger, then WE have problem in our entire society. It’s totally innappropriate to decide that well, we’ll just legalize pedophilia down to infancy and offer condoms next to pacifiers and bibs. Right, reality? That’s where it leads, doesn’t it? Because neither you nor any other employee of Planned Parenthood would EVER declare that any given human child is just too young to begin consuming Planned Parenthood products.
And, a prominent Irish lobbyist has admitted that the suicide prevention tactic is just that, a tactic, and abortion advocates in Ireland are deliberately using it as a wedge issue.
15 likes
“Sex is meant to result in a pregnancy” – that is complete and utter nonsense.
I feel like I am in the frikkin’ twilight zone.
Sexual reproduction is one kind of reproduction. The other is asexual where an organism produces offspring without first combining its DNA with another like organism. But both sexual and asexual are types of reproduction. That is the whole reason for sex, to get greater diversity of DNA and mitigate against harmful mutations. These pro aborts must have been asleep when they explained sex, selection and evolution. The live at the top of Darwin’s sh*tlist.
14 likes
Procreation is a part of what sex is about. History shows us that people have always had sex without pregnancy being the aim. We have always had sex for pleasure and love as well as procreation. You can associate yourself with base animal instinct if you wish, don’t include me.
The rest of your diatribe is nothing more than a big fat strawman. “Legalize pedophilia down to infancy” – seriously, is that the sort of rancid nonsense you’ll create to exaggerate beyond the realms of reason?
8 likes
History shows us that people have always had sex without pregnancy being the aim.
The biological purpose of sex is reproduction, that is why it has to be fun else no one man nor beast would do it. So, duh, we do it for fun, but that is not its purpose. Its purpose is continuing the species. All the critters that didn’t find it fun are long gone.
16 likes
Are you being obtuse or what hippie? Didn’t read it all? Didn’t understand it?
I said that the claim that “sex is meant to result in a pregnancy” is complete and utter nonsense, not that sex isn’t how pregnancy occurs.
Pregnancy is not the “whole reason for sex”. As I said “Procreation is a part of what sex is about.”
“The live at the top of Darwin’s sh*tlist” – then you must live at the bottom?
6 likes
I dare reality or any other employee of Planned Parenthood to name an age that is too young for Planned Parenthood’s style of “sex education.”
Go ahead, give us a number, such as 3 years old is too young, 5 years old is too young… I bet you won’t pick a number. You’ll just be all wishy washy. Because it’s true, there is no client too young for Planned Parenthood’s products. None.
9 likes
I don’t have training or experience in childhood education. Only with adults. PP wouldn’t be allowed into the education system to help with the teaching of sex-ed if the appropriately trained, skilled and experienced people in authority didn’t deem that what information is given to which age groups was suitable.
Shall I dare you? Do you have the necessary knowledge? Or would it just be your subjective opinion the same as it would be if I were to nominate?
Young people nowadays mature physically at a younger age. Whether we like it or not, they are surrounded by entertainment and advertising which piques their interest in sex and sexuality. It is therefore wise to ensure that they understand what actually happens, what the results can be and what precautions and self-protective methods they need to be able to use.
6 likes
You’ll just be all wishy washy.
You are right, ninek!! You must have ESP! I had a rough day so thanks for ending it with a big old belly laugh!
4 likes
The reason so many of us have experienced suicidal thoughts and attempts after abortion is because we finally come to the realization that we have paid someone to kill our own flesh and blood and we don’t know what to do to end the pain of that.
15 likes
LOL, thank you!
I remember reading how children were being raped in South Africa because there was a rumor that ‘sex with a virgin will cure you of aids.’ The libtard response? was to send more condoms.
At some point, reasonable people will acknowledge, “hey! These kids are too young and we need to fix that.” If our culture is too saturated, then we need to fix it, not just give elementary school children condoms and abortion coupons. Ah, even Screwtape would write to reality, “Dude! You have to at least PRETEND to be reasonable!” LOL!
8 likes
Just speaking as someone with five children who have not physically matured at a rate faster than normal…
My children are NOT surrounded by advertising and entertainment that has anything to do with sexuality. They are homeschooled and we do not have cable…by choice. They are only on the internet with supervision, mostly to play games on LEGO and American Girls. As they have gotten old enough they have had “the talk” and at least the oldest (14) understands what homosexuality is and why it is wrong. They understand why it is best for children (and the mother) that the parents be married before any babies come. They also know that abortion is killing a baby before it is born. They all think it is abhorrent. Meaning, they are NORMAL.
Amazingly enough, it is possible to raise Godly children to understand the consequences of sin without actually having to participate in that sin.
16 likes
Come on then ninek, tell us what your expertise dicates is the appropriate material for particular age groups. Or are you not willing to admit that your position is merely subjective?
I’ve not made any claims about what material is appropriate for which age group, all I’ve said is that sex-ed is a must and PP are a valid part of the information resources.
“At some point, reasonable people will acknowledge, “hey! These kids are too young and we need to fix that.” – I don’t disagree.
“If our culture is too saturated, then we need to fix it, not just give elementary school children condoms and abortion coupons.” - so in the meantime, what? Just let unwanted pregnancies and diseases run rife?
Cover your eyes and say ‘no no, it’s not happening’ – is that belly laugh material?
6 likes
I remember hearing about that going on in South Africa as well.
That thinking made about as much sense as someone saying something on the order of, “Oh well, whether we like it or not, kids are surrounded by entertainment and advertising which piques their interest in sex and sexuality so we better ensure that they understand what actually happens, what the results can be and what precautions and self-protective methods they need to be able to use.”
It’s so much easier to use common sense and say it’s time to reign in the kids, take parenting serious and hold entertainers, advertisers, proaborts, etc. accountable.
My belly is starting to hurt. . . . .
5 likes
Great post, Mat. Anna.
4 likes
Reality says:
May 2, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Procreation is a part of what sex is about. History shows us that people have always had sex without pregnancy being the aim. We have always had sex for pleasure and love as well as procreation. You can associate yourself with base animal instinct if you wish, don’t include me.
Having sex without being open to life is a “base, animal instinct.” I will associate you with that, at your insistence.
The practice of self-control is rational, human behavior. This is what separates humanity from animals: our ability to choose the difficult thing, when our lower appetites desire to satisfy some animal urge.
9 likes
Del, good post.
4 likes
“someone with five children who have not physically matured at a rate faster than normal…” – I didn’t say that. You think I said that? Show me where I said that. :-) What I said was “Young people nowadays mature physically at a younger age”
You keep your children locked in the house with all the blinds drawn?
“and at least the oldest (14) understands what homosexuality is and why it is wrong.” – so they’re being misinformed. Do you teach them YEC too?
“Meaning, they are NORMAL.” – well, your version of ‘normal’ anyway. Will your children only ever live within your cabal? Only socialise within the cabal? Only be employed within the cabal?
7 likes
Reality, please respond to Carla.
By the way Carla I see you like I see Arwen and Eowyn. Thanks for being you.
3 likes
Sure, I’ll show you: “Young people nowadays mature physically at a younger age.”
Reality, get a grip. I take seriously the responsibility to raise the children God gave me. Yammering from an athiest doesn’t affect me in the least.
10 likes
Cover your eyes and say ‘no no, it’s not happening’ – is that belly laugh material?
Did you even watch the video where the doctor says they use suction and real instruments to go in and grab human body parts and rip them until death?
Coming from you a statement about covering your eyes and denying reality would be downright knee-slapping, gut-busting, hilarious if it weren’t so incredibly sad and evil.
7 likes
So Praxedes, according to your logic cars shouldn’t have seatbelts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, brake assist, stability control or anything like that. All drivers should just drive really, really slowly on perfect road surfaces and hope, really really hope, they don’t come across any other motorists. And you certainly wouldn’t provide drivers-ed, you’d just hand them a permit and throw them behind the wheel when they reach an age that you deem appropriate. Yes?
The ‘base animal instinct’ Del, is when sex only takes place when the female of the species is ‘in heat’. In other words, when sex is only desired and acted upon as a means of procreation.
If sex was intended only for procreation then women wouldn’t have a clitoris, let alone the ability to ejaculate. Women would only desire sex when they were pretty much assured of getting pregnant. Pregnant women wouldn’t feel any sexual desire at any stage, nor would those who are infertile.
Would you outlaw infertile people from having sex?
6 likes
” Did you even watch the video where the doctor says they use suction and real instruments to go in and grab human body parts and rip them until death? ”
Yeah, and people admitting that the somewhat “kinder” killing of the fetus with Digoxin is optional, it’s okay if the mother doesn’t care about sparing the child even a bit of possible suffering. Her choice and all. Wouldn’t want her to be inconvenienced in any way at all ever, even if it means much greater possible pain for another person.
9 likes
Am I missing something or is the sole purpose of the automobile to kill innocent humans?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-b5aW08ivHU
3 likes
“Sure, I’ll show you: “Young people nowadays mature physically at a younger age.”
Reality, get a grip. I take seriously the responsibility to raise the children God gave me. Yammering from an athiest doesn’t affect me in the least.”
He’s actually right about that, puberty onset is earlier nowadays then it has been in prior years, for whatever reason.
9 likes
“Sure, I’ll show you: “Young people nowadays mature physically at a younger age.” – and you’re teaching children?!? You do realise you’ve got it wrong don’t you? Saying that “Young people nowadays mature physically at a younger age.” has zero correlation to whether or not your children have physically matured at a rate faster than normal. Your kids, my kids, everyone elses kids, physically mature younger than has been the case in the past.
“I take seriously the responsibility to raise the children” – are you prepared for what will happen when they find out the truth?
“Reality, please respond to Carla.” – Carla asked me a question?
6 likes
“Am I missing something or is the sole purpose of the automobile to kill innocent humans?” – now you think sex is for the sole purpose of killing? How’d you get there?
6 likes
It seriously bothers me that people can say no the Digoxin and still get an abortion (of course, the whole legal abortion thing is horrible, but this is particularly upsetting). Are people really saying that someone’s “right” to have the exact type of procedure that they want is more important than saving some poor doomed child some possible pain? If the fetus is going to die anyway why can’t they be, idk, the tiniest bit humane and insist that the baby dies with the least amount of pain possible. We’re kinder to animals that get put down.
And don’t give me that crap about “her body her choice”. She’s getting her “choice”, the terminated baby. There’s seriously no rational need whatsoever not to ensure that happens with the least amount of pain possible, even if you believe it’s a “valid” choice”. I can choose to shoot a home invader, but I can’t tie him to a chair and torture him to death. This stuff is seriously disturbing.
17 likes
Jack, there are a lot of Tin Men and Women in this world. It is frightening. Worse still, we are all susceptible to becoming Tin Men or Women; or, even more accurately, we all have already been Tin Men or Women at certain times in our own lives.
5 likes
I know, but seriously, what’s the reasoning here? Do they really see women getting abortions and their wants as the only important consideration ever? Is there no humanity in these people at all?
8 likes
” Worse still, we are all susceptible to becoming Tin Men or Women; or, even more accurately, we all have already been Tin Men or Women at certain times in our own lives.”
Possibly, but some of us are worse than others. I’ve done some fairly evil things, but I’ve never even thought once it was okay to torture someone for my own comfort. I’d like to think there aren’t *that* many people who are cool with that.
6 likes
I think this is the theme song of anyone who has ever gone to an abortion clinic or worked at one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MePOG81yMY
I would like PP to put out an add with this song. Life imitating art.
0 likes
He’s actually right about that, puberty onset is earlier nowadays then it has been in prior years, for whatever reason.
In Oral Communications I did an informative essay about the dairy industry. Many people link earlier onset of puberty to artificial hormone influence via dairy products. I vividly remember a graph of data from an Asian country who prior to Western influence typically had little to no dairy product consumption, and compared to the point at which widespread dairy consumption skyrocketed, the age of average onset of puberty-particularly menses in girls-plummeted.
As it turned out, one of the kids in my class was the daughter of a dairy farmer, and had some almost overtly hostile questions for me afterward. I was prepared for them, however, and got an ‘A’ on the presentation. It didn’t hurt that my teacher happened to be lactose intolerant. ;3
7 likes
Real-stupid-ity
Is doubling down on dumb…again.
This ain’t about suicide. It is about cruel, cold blooded, homicide.
If the abortionista fails at her first attempt to kill the child en utero, then the ‘dead babies are us’ mob demand she be given a mulligan, post partum, in order to nullify her original acts of incompetence and malfeasance.
7 likes
“In Oral Communications I did an informative essay about the dairy industry. Many people link earlier onset of puberty to artificial hormone influence via dairy products. I vividly remember a graph of data from an Asian country who prior to Western influence typically had little to no dairy product consumption, and compared to the point at which widespread dairy consumption skyrocketed, the age of average onset of puberty-particularly menses in girls-plummeted. ”
Hmm, that’s interesting. My kids barely eat any dairy and they only eat meat at their mom’s, maybe they’ll avoid this early puberty business.
6 likes
Okay I take back my 10:19 comment, I did sell heroin to feed my own addiction, and I probably indirectly contributed to people’s deaths that way, and it’s not like opiate addiction is a comfortable way to die. So I’m just as bad. But the point still stands. I really hope most people aren’t like that.
8 likes
Here is another video from Grease mocking abstinence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5D-D7VYmY
This video is also interesting because it refers to Dorothy Day. The writers of the song must have either not known the entire life story of Dorothy Day or they were trying to convey the prolife message in a very covert way. Here is a link to a short video about the life of Dorothy Day – a truly inspirational woman.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/february-8-2013/the-life-of-dorothy-day/14669/
Of particular interest to prolifers is the impetus for her conversion – at about 1:50 of the video.
3 likes
I don’t think you get the point of Rizzo’s story arc, Tyler.
12 likes
That she is a Dorothy Day type character you mean.
1 likes
I’m just going to go ahead and recommend not feeding the troll.
1 likes
Hold on, the baby KIND OF has a face? The baby isn’t developed? Really, I am constantly disgusted by this CRAP. The canned required statements, immediately all but retracted by the DOCTOR who is supposed to be providing CARE for this woman. Blech. I don’t want you to beat yourself up about this, just have the abortion, ok? I won’t make my money if you think about it too much…
I am so sick of this business. I am so hurt for those women who are sold the lie that abortion will solve their problems. The entire business is abuse and detachment. Abuse of women, abuse of the body, abuse of babies, abuse of the facts, abuse of sex, abuse of children, abuse abuse abuse.
14 likes
The song mentions Doris Day the actress (I love her! One of my favorites of all time), not Dorothy Day the activist.
9 likes
Well said, MaryRose. I agree 100%.
3 likes
kentheburper
are you doubling-up on imagination? Even more than usual?
where did I mention suicide?
where did I mention anything on this thread relevant to your verbal rambling?
I’ve heard it has something to do with modern industrial chicken production methods xalisae. Hormones or something.
5 likes
It would be better if they referred to Dorothy Day – it would be a much deeper reference.
Did you watch the video on Dorothy Day’s life story.
2 likes
The video won’t work for me, but I’ve read some on Dorothy Day. She did a lot of good for social justice from what I remember.
1 likes
I am so sick of this business. I am so hurt for those women who are sold the lie that abortion will solve their problems. The entire business is abuse and detachment. Abuse of women, abuse of the body, abuse of babies, abuse of the facts, abuse of sex, abuse of children, abuse abuse abuse.
Absolutely!! As one who bought every single stinkin lie I was told!! I bought the abortion that I was sold.
I TRUSTED those that were in medical authority because they were giving me the facts. Or so I thought. But it was outright lies. And lies of omission.
There is no informed consent with abortion. It is ALL BS.
17 likes
Mat.Anna I was raised that way. Sure, there were people who thought I was naïve and ignorant, but I compare my childhood with some of those people I came across, and mine was happier. So don’t let the naysayers get you down. I wish more people would protect childhood innocence. It’s sadly getting more and more lost.
7 likes
She turned her life around – the interesting part for prolifers is that her conversion was brought on by a deep gratitude for the birth of her daughter – even more poignant is the fact she was pregnant out of wedlock, had an abortion previously, and the father didn’t want to have children.
“Having a baby, the greatest miracle of all. So I could take on faith the truths of Christianity, the Church, the sacraments. My heart swelled with gratitude. Faith came to me just like that, and the need to adore.” – Dorothy Day
She was also a pacifist.
4 likes
Hey Tyler.
Was that a Lord of the Rings reference? Arwen? Eorwyn? (sp)
Do tell.
2 likes
Arwen is Elrond the elf dude’s daughter and married Aragorn IIRC and Eowyn killed Sauron. “But no living man am I!”
Edit: Yes that’s LotR
5 likes
I had a 3-D ultrasound last week (16w1d). My baby definitely looked like a baby.
Reality, do you support the statements by the abortionist, above? Do you think the statement that a 23 week fetus “doesn’t look like a baby”?
Your comments re: sex not creating babies reminded me of this:
“I never fail to be amused by how sex transforms liberals from hard-headed sociobiologists into velvet-minded romantics. From a strictly biological perspective, the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation alone, and the pleasure we derive from it is simply nature’s little stick and carrot. Why, then, this irrational and adamant defense of non-procreation and anti-natalism from people who otherwise jump at any opportunity to smugly wax prosaic about man being just another animal or the Darwinian origins of everything from organized religion to the nuclear family?
The reason, I believe, is duplicitous. To liberals, sexual hedonism is not valuable because it brings pleasure, but because it serves, Rousseau-style, to tear down the deleterious influence of civilized society. Had liberals really been friends of sexual joy and pleasure, they would have realized that sex is more valuable when it is limited or mystified by things such as pre-marital chastity or modest clothing. These things turn sex into the best it can be — a sacred ritual — rather than simply a biological act no different than defecation or sleep.”
– from http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/11/two-links-to-the-modern-world/
10 likes
I didn’t realize you were pregnant again JoAnna, congrats.
4 likes
Jack – Eowyn killed the Witch-King of Agmar. Sauron was killed when the One Ring was cast into the fires of Mount Doom by Frodo & Gollum.
5 likes
Oh yeah, my mistake. It’s been a long time since I read those books. But Arwen was the one that Strider married right?
2 likes
Thank you, Jack! Baby is due in early October. His/her two sisters and two brothers are tremendously excited.
8 likes
Yes, Strider/Aragorn married Arwen.
(My oldest daughter is named after a LOTR character [Elanor]… You could say I’m a fan.) :)
6 likes
“(My oldest daughter is named after a LOTR character [Elanor]… You could say I’m a fan.) ”
That’s pretty much awesome. If you have a boy you should name him Sam. ;) Sam and Boromir were always my favorite characters.
4 likes
Nice lyrical prose in the reading JoAnna, pity it’s nonsensical. And that’s even before we note that the writer is obviously a creationist and a theist.
“From a strictly biological perspective, the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation alone” – that’d be why the infertile and post-menopausal still desire sex then would it?
“and the pleasure we derive from it is simply nature’s little stick and carrot.” – so pregnant women don’t feel sexual desire right? And women aren’t endowed with a clitoris, ‘cos it’s just not needed to procreate.
Claiming that sex is only for procreation is what renders it “a biological act no different than defecation or sleep.” Sex for love and pleasure is what raises us above the animals.
6 likes
Jack – my best friend is also pregnant (due just a few days before me) and she wants to name her baby Sam. I think she’s be upset if I stole “her” baby name. :P
5 likes
Reality – do you think it’s accurate to say that a 23-week old fetus does not look like a baby?
That’s an interesting theory you have. What evidence do you have that the person quoted is a creationist?
I’m 16 weeks pregnant and I can assure you that pregnant women do desire sex. :) You see, again, that’s nature’s way of encouraging the males of the species to stick around during the pregnancy and help provide for the mother & her unborn child. It makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective.
12 likes
” Claiming that sex is only for procreation is what renders it “a biological act no different than defecation or sleep.” Sex for love and pleasure is what raises us above the animals.”
We aren’t above animals, we are animals. And some animals do have sex for bonding/stress reduction/fun. Bonobos are one example. I think dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction too.
I don’t think that people are correct when they say sex is biologically for procreation solely. It seems that there are other biological reasons for sex, like bonding. The amount of hormones like oxytocin I think it is that humans release during sex seems to point to that possibility. Regardless, it’s pretty apparent that procreations the most important reason for sex biologically.
4 likes
Congratulations, JoAnna!
1 likes
It’s hard to tell JoAnna, what with all the medical life support paraphernalia they have attached. A 23 week chimp fetus doesn’t look all that different. Some dolls are pretty good nowadays too.
Apart from his obvious attitude to Darwin in the piece you quoted, I’ve read some of his journal. He’s also a raging homophobe.
“I’m 16 weeks pregnant and I can assure you that pregnant women do desire sex.” – I am aware of that, that’s my point.
“that’s nature’s way of encouraging the males of the species to stick around during the pregnancy” – so if one woman is pregnant all the other women within reach lose their sexual desire so the man will stick with the pregnant woman because she’s the only one desiring sex? What if sex is too high risk for some medical reason during the pregnancy, can the man go elsewhere then?
“It makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective” – yeah, right. Is that a John C Wright quote too? How about love, how about a man wanting to protect his progeny?
Above base animal instinct Jack, sheesh. Yes, bonobos are a funny thing. Dolphins are interesting too. But none of them can read or write. They have only the most rudimentary of tools. Our knowledge and technological abilities have grown more in 100 years than that of any other species has in millenia. I think that sets us apart.
“it’s pretty apparent that procreations the most important reason for sex biologically” – I find that claim spurious. How many pregnancies occur as a percentage of sexual acts? Lotsa sex, comparatively very few pregnancies. I’ll choose ‘C’, ‘bonding’ please.
6 likes
” Above base animal instinct Jack, sheesh. Yes, bonobos are a funny thing. Dolphins are interesting too. But none of them can read or write. They have only the most rudimentary of tools. Our knowledge and technological abilities have grown more in 100 years than that of any other species has in millenia. I think that sets us apart.”
Nooo I don’t wanna start babbling on my “animals are people too” nonsense that makes me no fun at parties lol. But really, humans are great with the intelligence and empathy and tool making things, ’tis true. We’d lose in a fight with the hippo, though, and we couldn’t live in most environments without our tool-making abilities. Other animals are far better suited and good at a lot of different things. But I really don’t want to argue about it, I realize my opinions on the matter are nutty.
“it’s pretty apparent that procreations the most important reason for sex biologically” – I find that claim spurious. How many pregnancies occur as a percentage of sexual acts? Lotsa sex, comparatively very few pregnancies. I’ll choose ‘C’, ‘bonding’ please.””
But no one would exist without the reproductive aspect of sex, though. It seems like it’s more important in an evolutionary perspective. And some people are missing the bonding part of sex, too, for whatever reasons.
4 likes
“We’d lose in a fight with the hippo, though” – we’d lose to a whole lot more than hippo’s :-)
“and we couldn’t live in most environments without our tool-making abilities.” – that’s how we’ve come to live in almost all parts of the world.
“Other animals are far better suited and good at a lot of different things.” – can’t see lions doing too well in the arctic.
“It seems like it’s more important in an evolutionary perspective.” – oh yes indeedy. But our physiology has obviously developed so that procreation is only part of it.
6 likes
I’m not talking about animals anymore! (dogs are much nicer than humans imo)
“oh yes indeedy. But our physiology has obviously developed so that procreation is only part of it.”
Why do you think humans that don’t feel any bonding through sex still feel pleasure from it?
4 likes
You think dogs are nicer than humans yet you’ve got kids? Nor are all dogs nice.
Sex delivers physical pleasure in and of itself, you know the physiology of erogenous zones and all that stuff Jack. The clitoris is a larger organ than the penis and has more nerve endings by area or whatever, now that’s interesting. Women can actually get more pleasure from sex than men.
Hey, if sex is only for procreation why does masturbation deliver pleasure?
Once people have experienced sex within a bonding situation they’ll (hopefully) find out that the emotional link increases the physical pleasure.
6 likes
“You think dogs are nicer than humans yet you’ve got kids? Nor are all dogs nice.”
Well my kids are the just the best humans in existence. ;) Some dogs are mean, but on the whole they are good and loyal. I’ve never had a good a friend as my dog was when I was a kid.
” Hey, if sex is only for procreation why does masturbation deliver pleasure?”
I don’t think sex is only for procreation, I think that it’s main biological purpose is reproduction though. Those pleasurable feelings (that can be stimulated through whatevs) encourage this in humans. Doesn’t mean that other biological purposes aren’t present or important though.
” Once people have experienced sex within a bonding situation they’ll (hopefully) find out that the emotional link increases the physical pleasure.”
I think some people are simply incapable of that feeling the emotional link during sex, whether it’s caused by some sort of trauma or some biological defect. Sucks, but I think it’s true.
But anyway, you realize you’re basically kinda agreeing with the religious people in a way, you know? They always say that God (you can substitute that it evolved this way) made biology to be procreative and “unitive” (the bonding/emotional link) and made the most satisfying sex to be enjoyed between two people in a committed relationship.
Forgive my ramblings it’s like three am.
6 likes
I don’t mind agreeing that the basic mechanics of sex originally evolved for reproduction. All life forms on the planet started out pretty basic. As we’ve evolved further in all the other ways we recognise, our physiology evolved such that sex was no longer exclusively for procreation. It’s just that it’s evolution, not god.
My point all along has been that the claim that “Sex is meant to result in a pregnancy” is just plain ludicrous. There are too many physiological factors which say otherwise.
You’re not rambling but yep, it’s late. My spaghetti bolognaise is finally brewed. Time to eat and sleep.
Night.
7 likes
This is OT, but related to earlier comments. There is research in the medical field that suggests the onset of puberty in girls is directly related to body weight. There is the belief that puberty is triggered when girls reach around 100 pounds. I don’t know if this is true, but it’s interesting and seems to make sense that the average age of puberty would decrease given the increase in childhood obesity.
5 likes
Oh come now, Reality. The quote did not come from John C. Wright, so his views regarding homosexuality (of which he does not have an irrational fear) are irrelevant. Nor have you provided evidence of the quote author’s alleged creationism.
Perhaps I should start dismissing a pro-choicer’s arguments on the basis of their “raging fetophobia.”
Please, take a look at images of a 23-week fetus: http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit15.php
Do you think the abortionist’s assertion above is accurate?
If my husband was in the ICU and hooked up to so many machines and such that he “didn’t look human,” is that justification for me to kill him, on that basis alone? He doesn’t “look human,” therefore he is not? Doesn’t seem like a very rational or logical position.
5 likes
“Sex for love and pleasure is what raises us above the animals.”
I think it is the Holy Spirit that indwells in every baptized human person that raises human beings. The Holy Spirit, God’s love in each of us, is what transforms us.
It seems like animals experience pleasure and can show affection.
I never new “sex” had the magical properties Reality said it does.
“See, it is already clear that the soul of a faithful person, the most worthy of God’s creations through the grace of God, is greater than heaven, since the heavens and the rest of creation together cannot contain their Creator and only the soul of a faithful person is his dwelling place and throne and this is possible only through the charity that the wicked lack. For the Truth says: The one who loves me, will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and we shall come to him and make our dwelling place with him.” – St. Clare
1 likes
Jack hear is prayer you may like. Reality you may like it too.
The Canticle of Brother Sun
Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, honor and blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong;
no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.
We praise You, Lord, for all Your creatures,
especially for Brother Sun,
who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor,
of You Most High, he bears your likeness.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Moon and the stars,
in the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
We praise You, Lord, for Brothers Wind and Air,
fair and stormy, all weather’s moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Water,
so useful, humble, precious and pure.
We praise You, Lord, for Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night.
He is beautiful, playful, robust, and strong.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Earth,
who sustains us
with her fruits, colored flowers, and herbs.
We praise You, Lord, for those who pardon,
for love of You bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
by You Most High, they will be crowned.
We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in their sins!
Blessed are those that She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.
We praise and bless You, Lord, and give You thanks,
and serve You in all humility.”
– St. Francis of Assisi
3 likes
Carla, Joanna explained the references well. Tolkien portrayed women in the same way he portrayed good men: they were strong but susceptible to weakness, faithful but susceptible to doubt, and courageous but susceptible to fear. In short, these women were defenders of their peers.
3 likes
Ahhhhhh….might have to make this a LOTR movie day. :)
4 likes
Coming from a religious perspective there’s 2 MAIN purposes of sex:
Unitative (bonding, reaffirmation of the marriage vows)
procreative (open to the POSSIBILITY of offspring).
To separate one from the other is to take away from the experience. No, not EVERY sexual intercourse encounter is going to feel good every time, nor is it always going to mean procreation, but it’s important to be OPEN to BOTH.
5 likes
I don’t understand how sex that doesn’t feel good is supposed to be “unitative” though. In my experience if you have to have sex that you don’t enjoy out of obligation to your spouse you just end up resenting your spouse quite a bit. And I’m not sure it follows that just because the biological reason sex exists is procreation means that you have to be open to the idea of another kid with every sexual encounter, but I think that’s more just of a religious disagreement.
8 likes
Here you go JoAnna – http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/09/a-question-i-never-tire-of-answering
“I could have glanced around at the earth and sky, and seen the intricacy, wonder, and beauty of nature, regarded the unanswerable authority of the conscience within me, and known that I was a created being inside a created cosmos, not a random sandheap blown for a season into a meaningless shape by blind winds.”
“Perhaps I should start dismissing a pro-choicer’s arguments on the basis of their “raging fetophobia.” – well you could try but your argument would be baseless. Pro-choice folk don’t have ‘raging fetophobia’, not even ‘mild fetophobia’. Pro-choice folk have children. You know, the ones they choose to have, therefore they are more likely to provide better nurture. Pro-choice folk just aren’t fetus-fetishists.
I’ve already seen pictures of fetuses at various stages of development but I checked the link you provided anyway, thanks. You had asked a specific question and I answered it. Your husband doesn’t have a whole lot to do with a developing fetus in this context.
3 likes
I’m intrigued Tyler. What are these supposed ‘magical properties’ you feel I have imbued sex with?
Nah, didn’t think much of the ‘prayer’ at all.
I’m with you Jack. I think MIT has an odd approach.
4 likes
First of all, Reality, I asked for proof that the *quote’s author* was a creationist, as that was your claim. John C. Wright is not the author of the quote; his blog post is where I read it originally, hence the source.
Secondly, creationism =/= intelligent design. Creationism is the belief that the world was created precisely 5,000 years ago in six literal 24-hour days. The quote you posted does not remotely espouse such a belief. Rather, it professes a belief in intelligent design, which is not mutually exclusive with a belief in evolution,
Pro-choicers don’t have children, they have “potential life” until some arbitrary point of their choosing – and they seem absolutely terrified of fetuses given their committment to being able I legally kill them with impunity.
You haven’t yet answered my question, actually. You keep dancing around it. You said a 23-week fetus doesn’t “look human” with tubes and wires in his/her body (which is a bizarre statement because at that point, the baby would no longer be a fetus since a/he would be ex-utero).
But my question is if you think the abortionist gave an accurate statement when she said that a 23-week fetus (in-utero) does not look human. Is that accurate, yes or no?
4 likes
” I’m with you Jack. I think MIT has an odd approach.”
Well, if people want to have sex when it’s not enjoyable to please someone else, or be open to life with every single sexual encounter, more power to them. I just won’t live that way again.
2 likes
The link you provided earlier isn’t exactly useful. But I assume you mean Matthew Archbold, who on January 2nd this year wrote “God chose to use a celestial sign, most likely the alignment of planets according to one theory, to foretell and to announce the birth of His Son. So we must acknowledge that God can and has done this before.” and “What God might be trying to tell us via his creation is the furthest thing from our minds. When we do look to the heavens, it is with a hubris that discounts the Creator the further we can see into His creation.” Archbold is also a raging homophobe.
“intelligent design, which is not mutually exclusive with a belief in evolution” – now that’s funny!
“I was a created being inside a created cosmos” doesn’t equate to creationism? Now it’s my belly which is hurting.
“Pro-choicers don’t have children, they have “potential life” until some arbitrary point of their choosing” – well you’ve got a strange way of putting it but when they choose to complete the reproductive process they do indeed have a child. One that is genuinely wanted.
“You said a 23-week fetus doesn’t “look human” with tubes and wires in his/her body” – no I didn’t. And now it sounds like you’re trying to change the question.
Yes, it’s a strange mindset Jack.
3 likes
There is one sense that all Catholics are creationists – that is if we mean creationist according to its theological meaning. Catholics believe that each human soul was created by God and not generated through their parents. Is that what you meant Reality?
1 likes
Sorry Reality I just couldn’t follow your sentence: “Sex for love and pleasure is what raises us above the animals.”
What did you mean? In what sense did “sex for love and pleasure” raise us above the animals? Also what does “raise us above the animals” mean exactly according to you?
Did you mean our capacity to love and experience pleasure was greater than other animals? If so, why did you link love to sex since as you have previously acknowledged our capacity to love is not linked to our ability to have sex – most animals can and do have sex. I will let you explain what you meant.
2 likes
If sex for love and pleasure is what raises is above the animals, then abortion is what pushed us back down.
Tyler, Reality can’t explain. Primarily because he doesn’t understand LOVE. You and he are speaking 2 different languages.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL.
4 likes
It’s about a lot more than just the claim of there being a soul Tyler.
Do I really have to do your work for you Tyler?
“Above base animal instinct Jack, sheesh. Yes, bonobos are a funny thing. Dolphins are interesting too. But none of them can read or write. They have only the most rudimentary of tools. Our knowledge and technological abilities have grown more in 100 years than that of any other species has in millenia. I think that sets us apart.”
“Sex delivers physical pleasure in and of itself, you know the physiology of erogenous zones and all that stuff Jack. The clitoris is a larger organ than the penis and has more nerve endings by area or whatever, now that’s interesting. Women can actually get more pleasure from sex than men.
Hey, if sex is only for procreation why does masturbation deliver pleasure?
Once people have experienced sex within a bonding situation they’ll (hopefully) find out that the emotional link increases the physical pleasure.”
1 likes
“I don’t understand how sex that doesn’t feel good is supposed to be “unitative” though.”
Since I have heard you talk about this topic before I know you do. I think you do. Sex is only unitative if it is loving (not physical bonding- this why I don’t like the word “bonding” people you use it in different ways – sometimes meaning “love”, sometimes meaning something less than love). Being of service to your partner shouldn’t make you feel resentful towards your partner and if it does that person doesn’t really love their spouse – or at least, has very little sympathy for their partners feelings and desires. When the spirit of service of others is introduced in the relationship love making can be unitative because love is their. Love is act of the will – the good feeling or passion comes with a good act of the will. I hope I am making some sense. I didn’t always understand this aspect of love, this idea of service. That love is an act of the will, and not the good feeling. The good feeling comes from being loved, while loving means trying to give another person good feelings and more.
1 likes
“Tyler, Reality can’t explain.” – what you really mean is that some can’t understand :-)
“Primarily because he doesn’t understand LOVE.” – really? And how do you know that? I believe I have a greater capacity/ability/propensity to love than some I see here.
“You and he are speaking 2 different languages.” – yes, mine’s called factual.
2 likes
Reality you only talked about pleasure in the post at 8:27 pm – you didn’t mention love in that post.
Also I am a little bit more confused because of this post – are you now saying that it isn’t our ability to have “sex for love and pleasure” but rather our technological advancements that are what “raise us above the animals”?
1 likes
Both Tyler.
1 likes
“Being of service to your partner shouldn’t make you feel resentful towards your partner and if it does that person doesn’t really love their spouse – or at least, has very little sympathy for their partners feelings and desires. When the spirit of service of others is introduced in the relationship love making can be unitative because love is their. Love is act of the will – the good feeling or passion comes with a good act of the will. ”
It only works if its a two way street. Denying your spouse sex and affection and not taking their feelings and needs into account is cruel. But so is wanting your spouse to pleasure you without regard to whether or not they enjoy it is also cruel. There has to be compromise. When you are in a marriage where the sex drives don’t match up or if one of the partners has issues with sex because of prior sexual abuse or whatever, someone’s going to end up resentful or deprived, unless there is a lot of communication, understanding and compromise. My marriage lacked that communication and compromise, which was my fault.
7 likes
And personally I don’t understand why anyone would want sex that they knew didn’t feel good for their partner. I think that would damage the unitive aspect.
4 likes
Reality, I feel really sorry for you. I can only hope things change. There’s always hope. (And I’m not being sarcastic. I do pity you.)
1 likes
That’s not much of a committment Mat.Anna! Aren’t you going to pray for me too? Others do.
Meanwhile, I’ll put my energy into trying to assist in rectifying the real problems in the world :-)
1 likes
Mat. Anna–don’t bother with Reality. He’s a troll, and comes here for kicks, rather than to really understand. He looks down on Bible-believing Christians (or any people of faith) and thinks he’s so much smarter than the rest of us. His arrogance and his hollow-ness are intractable, and he isn’t worth engaging. It’s better that you just let him talk to himself.
BTW, you make a nice addition here at Jill’s. Peace–
2 likes
“comes here for kicks, rather than to really understand” – no no, you’ve got it all wrong. I come here to provide understanding. That’s why, on this thread for example, you’ll see (if you care to) that I have provided information, pointed out peoples errors and ventured my opinion in regard to items being discussed.
Unlike some I don’t just say “mmph, you’re a bogeyman, I’m not listening to you!”
1 likes
Jack, love, as you know, often requires us to do things we wouldn’t always want to do. For example, I really disliked having to change diapers for my son but I did it. I did it because if I didn’t he would be uncomfortable, etc…so I changed his diapers for his sake, not mine. My son was perfectly content, at times, to stay in those unclean diapers.
I hope you don’t mind me giving another example but it may help illuminate the degree to which we should love one another and especially how much more we should love and be available for our spouses. In our current hook-up society many people often perform sexual acts (serve) for people they hardly even know. But if you carry this same idea of service (not necessarily the same acts) over into marriage some people, perversely, think it is not appropriate or less loving. If we can service a stranger, surely we can service our spouse without feeling uncomfortable or full of shame. A certain arousal will be willed into existence on behalf of your partner. Obviously, one has to have common sense. And to be sure, one shouldn’t demand sex from their partners, but being available and willing for your partner is not a bad thing. To me, that is a very loving act.
1 likes
I missed the following comments by you:
It only works if its a two way street. Denying your spouse sex and affection and not taking their feelings and needs into account is cruel. But so is wanting your spouse to pleasure you without regard to whether or not they enjoy it is also cruel. There has to be compromise.
Agreed. But I think this can be agreed to ahead of time – at least a little bit. And hopefully the scheduling of romantic evenings doesn’t become so mechanical that the couple has to continually “seek permission” before doing anything romantic – that would definitely be a mood killer and make love-making more of a chore.
When you are in a marriage where the sex drives don’t match up or if one of the partners has issues with sex because of prior sexual abuse or whatever, someone’s going to end up resentful or deprived, unless there is a lot of communication, understanding and compromise. My marriage lacked that communication and compromise, which was my fault.
These are very good points Jack.
1 likes
Reality, you’re confusing young earth creationism with theistic evolution. Wright does not believe in the former, but rather the latter. If you choose to deride Christians for believing in theistic evolution, that’s one thing, but saying we believe in “creationism” isn’t accurate as that term commonly denotes “young earth” creationism (i.e., the belief that the world was created in six literal 24-hour days around 5,000 years ago). If you say “creationism,”
As for Matt Archbold, I have no idea where he fits into the conversation. I’m referring to Svein Sellanraa, who penned the original quote above (the one that begins, “I never fail to be amused by how sex transforms liberals from hard-headed sociobiologists into velvet-minded romantics…). You called him a creationist.
“You said a 23-week fetus doesn’t “look human” with tubes and wires in his/her body” – no I didn’t.
Yes you did: It’s hard to tell JoAnna, what with all the medical life support paraphernalia they have attached. A 23 week chimp fetus doesn’t look all that different. Some dolls are pretty good nowadays too.
My question is the same as it has always been:Do you think the abortionist gave an accurate statement when she said that a 23-week fetus (in-utero) does not look human? Yes or no?
“Meanwhile, I’ll put my energy into trying to assist in rectifying the real problems in the world”
For Christians, it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. :) We both pray AND try to rectify the problems of the world.
3 likes
“The live at the top of Darwin’s sh*tlist” – then you must live at the bottom?
I am not on it, fool. I passed biology, including the part about selection and biological fitness. No offspring = Biological loser. Where the biological tree becomes a stump.
My sticker chart is filled with stars.
3 likes
Not to put to fine a point on it but prostitution isn’t bad because of the service it performs, or even the exchange of money, it is bad primarily because of who that service is performed with/for. Service is good, serving other people is good.
0 likes
no no, you’ve got it all wrong. I come here to provide understanding.
LOL
Reality doesn’t even understand the basics and imagines himself wise.
That right there is the Dunning Kruger effect, folks!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
“The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else.”
6 likes
“Jack, love, as you know, often requires us to do things we wouldn’t always want to do. For example, I really disliked having to change diapers for my son but I did it. I did it because if I didn’t he would be uncomfortable, etc…so I changed his diapers for his sake, not mine. My son was perfectly content, at times, to stay in those unclean diapers.”
Yeah… I don’t think you can compare a parent providing basic necessities for a minor child to a spouse providing a sex to another spouse.
” I hope you don’t mind me giving another example but it may help illuminate the degree to which we should love one another and especially how much more we should love and be available for our spouses. In our current hook-up society many people often perform sexual acts (serve) for people they hardly even know. But if you carry this same idea of service (not necessarily the same acts) over into marriage some people, perversely, think it is not appropriate or less loving. If we can service a stranger, surely we can service our spouse without feeling uncomfortable or full of shame. A certain arousal will be willed into existence on behalf of your partner. Obviously, one has to have common sense. And to be sure, one shouldn’t demand sex from their partners, but being available and willing for your partner is not a bad thing. To me, that is a very loving act. ”
Okay, people “perform sexual acts” for strangers because they want to (or, sadly, sometimes because they are emotionally damaged). They aren’t providing the stranger with a loving action, they are getting off, to be blunt. You aren’t providing a service for someone you love when you are sleeping with a stranger. This is an odd idea you have.
And again, I don’t think it’s *wrong* to have sex when you really don’t want to, because you want to please your partner. That’s your choice to do so. For me personally though, I just don’t like this way of looking at sex as something you do *for* someone, or something that’s obligated. It should be a mutual thing that both partners are into, every time. I don’t think you understand that feeling like you’re obligated to have sex, and feeling like you have to force yourself to have sex when you find it very unpleasant, to make someone happy, can actually cause a lot of damage to a marriage and the people involved.
And I still don’t get why anyone would like sex that they know their partner doesn’t enjoy it.
5 likes
” And hopefully the scheduling of romantic evenings doesn’t become so mechanical that the couple has to continually “seek permission” before doing anything romantic – that would definitely be a mood killer and make love-making more of a chore.”
You should seek permission before initiating sex if you know your spouse has a much lower sex drive than you, or that he/she has emotional issues with sex that you know make the whole thing very difficult for them. You’re being rather selfish if you don’t, in my opinion.
5 likes
Okay, people “perform sexual acts” for strangers because they want to (or, sadly, sometimes because they are emotionally damaged). They aren’t providing the stranger with a loving action, they are getting off, to be blunt.
You misunderstand what I said Jack. The act of sex doesn’t change with the person you have sex with. Sex is still sex. What changes is the person and the context/situation – the situation changes from a business transaction to a loving relationship. Service is being rendered in each situation – granted many people don’t (or refuse) to see it this way. I am not sure why – but I think some sentimentality or romanticism has crept into the general public’s notion of adult sexual relationships.
You aren’t providing a service for someone you love when you are sleeping with a stranger. This is an odd idea you have.
I never said such a thing.
You should seek permission before initiating sex if you know your spouse has a much lower sex drive than you, or that he/she has emotional issues with sex that you know make the whole thing very difficult for them. You’re being rather selfish if you don’t, in my opinion.
Of course. I understand that this comment came from your personal experience and that you are not accusing me of being selfish. I agree seeking permission is loving.
And I still don’t get why anyone would like sex that they know their partner doesn’t enjoy it.
This is a completely different issue. I never envisioned a scenario where the spouse didn’t enjoy servicing or being serviced – just that they were being inconvenienced. If a partner doesn’t enjoy the sex that is a serious problem and as you said needs to be communicated.
And again, I don’t think it’s *wrong* to have sex when you really don’t want to, because you want to please your partner. That’s your choice to do so. For me personally though, I just don’t like this way of looking at sex as something you do *for* someone, or something that’s obligated. It should be a mutual thing that both partners are into, every time. I don’t think you understand that feeling like you’re obligated to have sex, and feeling like you have to force yourself to have sex when you find it very unpleasant, to make someone happy, can actually cause a lot of damage to a marriage and the people involved.
I can see that being obligated can be taken in different ways and I think you are envisioning scenarios where the obligation arises to the level of coercion. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about each person in the relationship generating an internal feeling of obligation to make their spouses happiness more important than their own. Both people in the couple are obligated to live this higher ideal of sacrificial love - putting the needs and wants of the other first – obviously within the limits of reason and prudence.
0 likes
If the couple is in a sacrificial relationship (a relationship with idea of Christ at the top) then all sexual encounters will be mutual. In this sense, and/or ideally, each person will be perpetually in the mood, be willing to give themselves to the other.
3 likes
“You misunderstand what I said Jack. The act of sex doesn’t change with the person you have sex with. Sex is still sex. What changes is the person and the context/situation – the situation changes from a business transaction to a loving relationship. Service is being rendered in each situation – granted many people don’t (or refuse) to see it this way. I am not sure why – but I think some sentimentality or romanticism has crept into the general public’s notion of adult sexual relationships. ”
No, I understood what you said, I just don’t agree. Sex is sex, the acts are the same if you perform them with a stranger or your wife of fifty years. But the way that you describe it, as a “service”, I don’t agree with. Sex should be two people mutually enjoying each other’s bodies, not one servicing the other. At least, that’s the way I would like to view sex.
” Of course. I understand that this comment came from your personal experience and that you are not accusing me of being selfish. I agree seeking permission is loving.”
Yes I was speaking from my own life and in generalities, I personally would love it if someday someone bothered to ask my permission before initiating sex, and I know other people would like that too (not everybody, but some people). I wasn’t directing that at you or calling you selfish. If you and your wife have a different way of doing things that’s good for you, that’s great.
” This is a completely different issue. I never envisioned a scenario where the spouse didn’t enjoy servicing or being serviced – just that they were being inconvenienced. If a partner doesn’t enjoy the sex that is a serious problem and as you said needs to be communicated. ”
This whole discussion started with MiT saying that “sex isn’t always going to feel good”, I take issue with that, because I don’t think anyone should have to have sex or feel obligated to continue having sex if it doesn’t feel good, or if they aren’t enjoying themself, or if it’s painful, etc. If we’re just talking about being inconvenienced, I do agree if people want to have a healthy sex life in their marriage they should probably make an effort to get intimate if their spouse really wants it, even if it’s not particularly convenient.
” I can see that being obligated can be taken in different ways and I think you are envisioning scenarios where the obligation arises to the level of coercion. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about each person in the relationship generating an internal feeling of obligation to make their spouses happiness more important than their own. Both people in the couple are obligated to live this higher ideal of sacrificial love - putting the needs and wants of the other first – obviously within the limits of reason and prudence. ”
Well I think people who are married should definitely try to take care of their spouses needs and happiness, but not to the detriment of their own. If you are miserable because you’re trying to please someone else, it’s just going to cause different problems. If you don’t care about your own happiness who is going to take care of you? Probably no one.
6 likes
Well I think people who are married should definitely try to take care of their spouses needs and happiness, but not to the detriment of their own.
Yes, I agree with this – to a certain extent…. Because, paradoxically, loving and sacrificing for one you care about can never be to the detriment of oneself. (I realize that the word ”sacrifice” seems to imply a detriment to oneself in this sentence. Communicating the idea of true love is difficult – it is best seen in what Jesus did on the Cross. This is the standard we are all called to and often fall short of. I know I am still working at it.)
If you are miserable because you’re trying to please someone else, it’s just going to cause different problems. If you don’t care about your own happiness who is going to take care of you? Probably no one.
I agree with this. I think this is sound advice for the most part.
0 likes
How did this discussion about infanticide derail to sex between two spouses, religion, the theories of creation, the biological and emotional explanations for sex, and everything else? It sounds to me like a lot of people really just have strong opinions about those things that may loosely be connected to the article and are distracted from the article.
The article isn’t debating sex at all, it’s about the moral crime of infanticide *happening in our society*, and that most Americans are willing to simply put a sheet over their eyes and avoid the issue entirely. It’s about the lies that we are being fed when walking into an abortion clinic. As Carla said, we think that because they are doctors, we can trust them to give us all of the correct information, but one of the doctors even tells the woman not to beat herself up about it. If she thinks about it too much, she will realize that it’s horrific *now*, and they won’t get her business. They don’t care about the woman, who they know will likely realize at some point that, as Carla said, they killed her flesh and blood. Abuse, abuse, abuse (MaryRose). They don’t care about the implications it is making about our society or the moral strains. As Tyler said, there are many Tin Men and Women in this society, and there is something wrong with that. But instead of realizing that and focusing our efforts there, instead of seeing infanticide the way it is, many debate and teach the youth that the lies are reality. The woman who represents the clinic is a wonderful portrayal of the reality behind it: she simply “doesn’t know,” and that is okay with her.
And thank you, Carla, for sharing your story with us. It truly takes bravery and courage, and I admire that. I pray that you find peace, comfort, and fulfillment.
5 likes
JoAnna, the link you provided with the quote that you cited led to a page for John C Wright’s Journal which said “Not Found. Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help.” So I copied the entire first paragraph into a search engine and it came up with this http://reader.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/11/john-c-wright-on-sex-and-political.html – he says he’s making ‘editorial comment’ but unfortunately the ‘continue reading’ tab fails, therefore further investigation is prevented. Matt Archbold came up along the way.
I won’t spend time wondering why you did what you did rather than provide the link you eventually did in the first place. It doesn’t really matter, I can’t imagine what you thought the quote provided evidence for or of anyway.
You appear to be confused. There is ‘young earth creationism’, ‘creationism’ (or ‘intelligent design’ as some try to disguise it – what you refer to as thesitic evolution), and there is evolution. YEC says ‘god did it 5 or 6 thousand years ago’, creationism says ‘god did it but we won’t put a timeline on it and then maybe some evolution type stuff happened’ and evolution shows us the truth.
I did not say “a 23-week fetus doesn’t “look human” with tubes and wires in his/her body”. You asked “do you think it’s accurate to say that a 23-week old fetus does not look like a baby?” to which I replied “It’s hard to tell…”.
“We both pray AND try to rectify the problems of the world” – I don’t waste my time on the pointless bit :-)
“No offspring = Biological loser.” – quite right. Hence the fact that I never stated that sex wasn’t also for reproduction.
“My sticker chart is filled with stars” – I’m sure you spend an aweful lot of time making it look pretty. Do you use different colored ones? Do you attach them in a pattern or randomly?
“the Dunning Kruger effect” – are you being a copycat or have you just not been paying much attention lately?
1 likes
Reality – please see the links I provided in my last post. The original post is still available via the Internet Wayback Machine.
Please look at the images of the 23 week fetus (link to ehd.org in my previous post). It is not hard to tell at all. Either it looks human or it does not. Does a 23-week fetus look human, yes or no? If not, how?
1 likes
You only provided one link in your last post. I checked it at the time and it did indeed take me to Svein’s piece. As I said, I won’t spend time wondering why you didn’t provide that link in the first place. Or why.
A 23 week fetus usually looks human, so can a 23 week chimp fetus.
Did I clarify young earth creationism, creationism and evolution sufficiently for you?
1 likes
So, Reality, you disagree with the abortionist the OP, who stated that a 23-week (human) fetus does not “look human”?
And is “not looking human” a legitimate justification for killing a human being, in your view
Also, You obviously have not looked into theistic evolution, which is actually different from creationism, at all. It does not hold that “some evolution stuff maybe happened,” it holds that evolution did happen, in the timeline that most scientists have assigned to it, but that God was the instigator and designer of the process.
2 likes
I’m not attached to his eyes and brain so I can’t speak for his interpretation of what he sees. Neither you or I have seen the 23 week fetuses that he’s seen.
“And is “not looking human” a legitimate justification for killing a human being, in your view” – no.
Can you explain the difference between “it holds that evolution did happen, in the timeline that most scientists have assigned to it, but that God was the instigator and designer of the process” and “god did it but we won’t put a timeline on it and then maybe some evolution type stuff happened” apart from my slightly tongue in cheek way of putting it? We are both saying that creationism (also known as intelligent design) is the belief that a god created it all and then evolutionary activities occured. Thiestic evolution is creationism, it just isn’t the young earth variety. That’s why young earth creationism has its own term.
Do some searches on the various terms. Perhaps check out Ken the Ham’s demented site, or some of Michael Behe’s stuff. Try sites like Answers in Genesis, Uncommon Descent or Darwin’s God.
2 likes
Reality, I’m on my 7th pregnancy. I’ve seen ultrasounds of each of my five living children at or around 20 weeks. They have all looked human, and indeed all looked quite similar at that stage. Why do you refuse to examine the evidence and decide for yourself? Are you afraid?
The abortionist is a she, by the way. Perhaps you should try reading the OP before commenting on it?
Theistic evolution is exactly the same as atheistic evolution, with the exception that in theistic evolution, God is the instigator/designer of the process as opposed to it all happening by pure random chance..
Creationism, on the contrary, is fuzzy on evolution and its role. Some creationists deny evolution alltogether, others believe in macroevolution and not microevolution, etc.
1 likes
“Why do you refuse to examine the evidence and decide for yourself?” – I have examined the evidence. I don’t see the relevance.
“Are you afraid?” – of what?
‘She’ then, whatever. I responded to your question.
“Theistic evolution is exactly the same as atheistic evolution, with the exception that in theistic evolution, God is the instigator/designer of the process…” – yes, creationism.
“Some creationists deny evolution alltogether, others believe in macroevolution and not microevolution, etc” – they all believe that god is the original creator. Therefore creationism.
Perhaps you’d be interested in the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research websites too.
1 likes
Jack says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:35 pm
I don’t understand how sex that doesn’t feel good is supposed to be “unitative” though. In my experience if you have to have sex that you don’t enjoy out of obligation to your spouse you just end up resenting your spouse quite a bit. And I’m not sure it follows that just because the biological reason sex exists is procreation means that you have to be open to the idea of another kid with every sexual encounter, but I think that’s more just of a religious disagreement.
Jack,
Sorry I’m late answering you. Saturday I didn’t get online at all and Sunday I wasn’t feeling well. (I’m doing better).
I wasn’t trying to imply sex doesn’t ever feel good. But sometimes, it’s better than others.
As to the procreation side–it doesn’t always mean kids WILL happen and it doesn’t always mean that the couple in question feels like it’s the BEST time for kids to happen, it just means that the couple won’t go to extraordinary means (contraceptives) to avoid pregnancy or end a pregnancy (abort) if a pregnancy does happen. That’s why Natural Family Planning exists, to help a couple prayerfully consider when is or isn’t a good time for children…and to work WITH God on that. Natural Family Planning has given my husband and I the means to truly work together to be on the same page and to enjoy sexual intimacy without barriers–without the birth control pill/shot/implant/whatever or condoms. It means I receive my husband completely as he is, and he receives me completely as I am, nothing in the way of us fully giving ourselves to each other and fully accepting each other. To contracept says “I love you except for your fertility.” NFP gives you a means to say yes without holding back any aspect of yourself or refusing any aspect of your spouse.
0 likes