phanatical said:
Frankly, as long as you're not putting your peepee into her bajingo, I don't really give a crap what you do behind closed doors. In fact, I'd much rather not know. And the reason people have sex regardless of the risks is because, despite the best intentions of the do-gooders, PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE RISKS. They think "it'll neve happen to me", and go ahead and do it. People are stupid. They need to be told quite explicitly that "you have sex and create a child, you take care of the child or suffer the consequences" - certainly not in those terms, but I think the sentiment is clear.
I think the above illustrates why you have little grasp of social dynamics.
I really hope you are not suggesting that the reason people do have sex so recklessly, as you infer, is because they don’t know that when they put their ‘pee pee’ into another girls ‘bajingo’ that a pregnancy can result. You would have to be severely misinformed or simply stupid to actually not know the risks of sex considering the level of sex education and physical education offered to children of all ages (which, from memory I think you are against?). I think the reason why people engage in sexual intercourse is a long way away from your summation that they do not know that sex can result in a pregnancy. I also think your summation is so far away from the mark because you personally do not want to have sex for for pleasure or for procreation (or at least not considering it any time soon).
Also, as most humans are aware, when contraceptives are used properly the chances of falling pregnant are very low. The average rational human engages in a bit of reasoning and decides that the risk of pregnancy is outweighed by the pleasure of sex.
erawamai said:
Do you accept that abortions are a part of society and have been for centuries? Or do you feel that you could completely abolish abortions?
phanatical said:
Abortion is murder. But sometimes it's more compassionate to mercifully take a life.
That’s an interesting little oxymoron there. So it’s ok to murder if it’s compassionate?
Do you accept that by making it harder to have legal abortions may have a negative affect of creating a black market abortion service where the chance of the additional death of the pregnant mother is a possibility?
phanatical said:
I want to reduce the amount of abortions by reducing the amount of conceptions. This must be done by not only encouraging people not to engage in the act of procreation, but also by enforcing parental responsibility on those who Do create a human life.
How exactly do you force parental responsibility onto people?
How exactly do you reduce the number of conceptions?
How exactly do you encourage people not to have sex?
Making sex taboo only has the result turning back time. Making it taboo may even result in making sex cool unlike today where sex is amost passe.
Another question to consider is whether it is natural to force consenting adults to kerb their sexual desires. Whether sex is something that is learnt or whether it is biologically programed into us. Whatdo you think phanatical?
erawamai said:
Do you accept that sexual intercoarse is pleasurable and that people have sex for the purpose of pleasure ? Or do you feel that sex should only be for the purposes of procreation
phanatical said:
Yes, I do. Driving at 160kmh is also pleasurable, but if I kill someone doing that I still have to take responsibility for it.
You are getting your analogies mixed up again. In the case of a reckless driver having fun his accident results in a death that is not his active choice. You also can’t correct your analogy by arguing that by doing such speeds he has made an active choice to end a life as doing 160kmph in certain situations is safer than doing 40kmph in others.
In the case of a woman who wants an abortion the termination is not an accident but rather an active choice. In this case the accident results in a pregnancy and not the loss of life.
phanatical said:
I believe that bad parents should serve their time in jail. It is the responsibility of society to assist and (if necessary) substitute in teaching proper values if the parents cannot do so.
I’m not sure if it is in the best interests of the child to have his or her father or mother locked up. Your suggested punishment reeks of knee jerk reasoning that evidences that you have not really thought about it. Locking a mother or father up isn’t going to exactly bring the family back together after the father has served his time in gaol. In particular if the person was never emotionally involved with the mother in the first place. Do you expect the parents to live in a loveless relationship at the risk that the all mighty state might lock them up? What kind of impact will that have on the child? Do the parents not have rights as well or are they to be subservient the rights of the child? How far does this responsibility extend?
I think you ideas are limited by your inability to get away from socialist reasoning. There are very easy ways of allowing market mechanisms to influence peoples choices without having them fear the oppressive yoke of your brand of quasi socialist reasoning.