Against abortion except in cases of rape

[Dario]

Originally Posted by erithromycin

Consent in the act of creation, isn't it?

Sex is an act intended to produce pregnancy. When two people agree to have sex, each ought to be cognisant of (and implicitly consents to) the potential for pregnancy. Rape is a violent act. The intent of the 'except for rape' is, I think, to seperate sex, where both parties have the option to take actions that can prevent pregnancy (and therefore the need for abortion), and rape, where, due to the lack of consent, one party does not.

I would go further and say that sex itself is a violent act, just happens to be in a positive context. Couples don't set out to have sex thinking "the purpose is make a baby" (you will get ones saying they're trying for a child, but really the primary incentive is just, well, fucking) From what little snippets I've heard of some psychology (I'm definitely no authority on this and am very likely to be wrong), hostility and sexuality are very closely linked, sexual repression/denial possibly resulting in increased hostile behaviour and so forth. Sex is, in a way, violent, but acceptably so to most of us if both parties are okay with it. But the line between sex and violence is much, much thinner than people would have you believe, in my opinion at least.

Which isn't on-topic at all, actually. I don't think I'm in any position to give a balanced view on this anyway- seeing as I perceive 98% of the population to be walking abortion advertisements. Plus, I've been drinking a lot of sambuca, and I have a natural inclination towards... being a cunt?

I'll try and get back on topic... um, eventually. Someday. I think.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Dario

I would go further and say that sex itself is a violent act,

Perry Farrell a go-go...

From what little snippets I've heard of some psychology (I'm definitely no authority on this and am very likely to be wrong), hostility and sexuality are very closely linked,

Well in so much that the basic neurochemical and biological gubbins associated with excitation will probably be the same for hostility and sex. Unless you are thinking of the associations between the 'sex' hormone testosterone and male aggressive behaviour? Its not strictly speaking related to sexuality as far as I am aware...

sexual repression/denial possibly resulting in increased hostile behaviour and so forth.

Responses to any kind of repression or denial can possibly result in hostile behaviour or acceptance. Sexual repressions probably not a particularly special case. Its worth noting that everyones probably considered sexually repressed by someone in someway.

Sex is, in a way, violent, but acceptably so to most of us if both parties are okay with it. But the line between sex and violence is much, much thinner than people would have you believe, in my opinion at least.

Sex can be "violent" but it is not nessecarily so. Its a physical act - is that what makes it violent if so are all physical acts violent? Or is it the penetrative aspect that you consider makes it violent?

[MarkMono]

Feminism certainly seems to think so.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Perry Farrell a go-go...



Well in so much that the basic neurochemical and biological gubbins associated with excitation will probably be the same for hostility and sex. Unless you are thinking of the associations between the 'sex' hormone testosterone and male aggressive behaviour? Its not strictly speaking related to sexuality as far as I am aware...



Responses to any kind of repression or denial can possibly result in hostile behaviour or acceptance. Sexual repressions probably not a particularly special case. Its worth noting that everyones probably considered sexually repressed by someone in someway.



Sex can be "violent" but it is not nessecarily so. Its a physical act - is that what makes it violent if so are all physical acts violent? Or is it the penetrative aspect that you consider makes it violent?

I was referring more to the notion of displacement, and the constant to-and-fro between sex drives and death drives. I was essentially nodding to the large influence that I perceive aggressive inclinations as having in the balancing of the two. Again, though, I'm fully aware that this is sketchy at best, this isn't quite a fully-formed opinion of mine yet. I was partly thinking of the basic link with neurochemical processes of excitation/pleasure, but not extensively so, and not so much so that it was crucial to the point I was trying to make. It's also perfectly possible that I've put it backwards, i.e. not 'sex is a violent act' but perhaps 'violence is a sexual act', or sexual urges gone awry, going back to the displacement/frustration argument.

I certainly wasn't saying that it's violent because it's physical, as that would include any number of inanities like shaking someone's hands or tapping them on the shoulder. Same with the penetration thing, if sticking something in an orifice automatically counts as violent then what about people who pick their nose? The brutes! So aye, wasn't saying anything along those lines at all.

Anyway. I'll shut up now.

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Feminism certainly seems to think so.

In that case, I take it all back. Uch.

[erithromycin]

Sex drives and death drives eh? I take it you've been to see Death Proof?

By consenting to sex, there's a corresponding consent to the risk/possibility of pregnancy. Both parties are understood to consent to that possibility in the mindset that sees all sex as procreative or recommends it only within marriage. Abortion is a unilateral decision to remove pregnancy, so allowing it in cases of rape is effectively (at least, as I understand the argument), adding an opportunity for consent to the creation of a child, after the fact.

It's clumsy, and no substitute for concealed carry permits, but it's better than the 'every life is sacred' crowd who won't provide the morning after pill or chemical contraception. Those bastards need a good killing.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by erithromycin

Sex drives and death drives eh? I take it you've been to see Death Proof?

I stopped watching it after the first minute or so, I'll have you know! Couldn't stand it.

[erithromycin]

You didn't make it through the title sequence? Or was it the presence of the Alamo Drafthouse that put you off?

[Dario]

Originally Posted by erithromycin

You didn't make it through the title sequence? Or was it the presence of the Alamo Drafthouse that put you off?

Okay, maybe more than a minute including the title sequence, sliiight exaggeration there, but it was basically the women yakkin' on and on in their car that did my head in.