Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks. And presumably this intrinsic right to sex trumps the rights of nature?
As in -- say the natural result of intercourse were to follow; if the couple so desired, they ought to be able to eliminate by starvation, poisoning, or dismemberment the natural result of their consensual actions?
I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
I've read this several times and I still don't understand what you're getting at.
Thanks. And presumably this intrinsic right to sex trumps the rights of nature?
As in -- say the natural result of intercourse were to follow; if the couple so desired, they ought to be able to eliminate by starvation, poisoning, or dismemberment the natural result of their consensual actions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
I've read this several times and I still don't understand what you're getting at.
I think I get what Mike is trying to say.
The "rights of nature" has to do with the idea that nature will do what nature does...regardless of how 'we' may try to control it.
So many people have tried to separate sexuality from procreation, not getting that pregnancy is often a result of sex.
Pregnancy is not some secondary item on 'nature's list' when it comes to sex, as so many try to make it out to be. Becoming pregnant through intercourse is not some 'accident' of nature; it's the intention of 'nature'.
Yet, so many try to have sex without 'nature's' interference.
Each and every time one has sex, they should consider the possibility that a pregnancy can occur. After all, WHY are people engaging in a reproductive act, when they KNOW that reproduction is a possibility...no matter HOW MINUTE it may seem at the time?
Each and every time one has sex, they should consider the possibility that a pregnancy can occur. After all, WHY are people engaging in a reproductive act, when they KNOW that reproduction is a possibility...no matter HOW MINUTE it may seem at the time?
Setting aside that not every penetrative sexual act can lead to pregnancy (particularly between same-sex participants), not everyone has moral hangups about that sort of thing. There are also various forms of birth control that, when properly used, make pregnancy highly unlikely when a fertile man and woman have intercourse (though certainly not impossible).
I have only gotten someone pregnant (my wife) on purpose—and to be clear, she was an equally knowing and voluntary participant . Had she gotten pregnant at any time before we started trying for a baby, we probably would have rolled with it since we always knew we wanted to have kids. Once we are done having children, I will get a vasectomy, since that’s far easier and less invasive than tubal ligation.
Setting aside that not every penetrative sexual act can lead to pregnancy (particularly between same-sex participants), not everyone has moral hangups about that sort of thing. There are also various forms of birth control that, when properly used, make pregnancy highly unlikely when a fertile man and woman have intercourse (though certainly not impossible).
I have only gotten someone pregnant (my wife) on purpose—and to be clear, she was an equally knowing and voluntary participant . Had she gotten pregnant at any time before we started trying for a baby, we probably would have rolled with it since we always knew we wanted to have kids. Once we are done having children, I will get a vasectomy, since that’s far easier and less invasive than tubal ligation.
I have mentioned my beautiful little boy numerous times on this forum. He is our biological child. Obviously, he had to be created in some way. I assume your biological children were created in a similar way. There is no TMI whatsoever. Try reading my post again, which shares no details beyond the basic fact that my biological child was procreated as a result of biological procreation. Or don’t if it the very notion of a baby being conceived shocks your delicate sensibilities.
If the word “vasectomy†upsets you, well, I’m likewise #SorryNotSorry.
The "rights of nature" has to do with the idea that nature will do what nature does...regardless of how 'we' may try to control it.
So many people have tried to separate sexuality from procreation, not getting that pregnancy is often a result of sex.
Pregnancy is not some secondary item on 'nature's list' when it comes to sex, as so many try to make it out to be. Becoming pregnant through intercourse is not some 'accident' of nature; it's the intention of 'nature'.
Yet, so many try to have sex without 'nature's' interference.
Each and every time one has sex, they should consider the possibility that a pregnancy can occur. After all, WHY are people engaging in a reproductive act, when they KNOW that reproduction is a possibility...no matter HOW MINUTE it may seem at the time?
Thanks but I was hoping Mike could explain his own post.
I still don't know what 'intrinsic right to sex trumps the rights of nature' means. Nobody has a 'right' to sex with another person.
It's a consensual act between two people and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. There is no 'right'.
I don't know how Mike is pitting that against 'rights of nature' as if they are in a battle.
I'm not sure if Mike has heard of contraception, and sex doesn't even need to include the kind of act that could potentially lead to a pregnancy, if indeed one of those involved could even get pregnant.
It's beyond me why Mike continues to post about this stuff. He has extremely incomplete and narrow views and it shows every time he posts.
Thanks but I was hoping Mike could explain his own post.
I still don't know what 'intrinsic right to sex trumps the rights of nature' means. Nobody has a 'right' to sex with another person.
It's a consensual act between two people and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. There is no 'right'.
I don't know how Mike is pitting that against 'rights of nature' as if they are in a battle.
I'm not sure if Mike has heard of contraception, and sex doesn't even need to include the kind of act that could potentially lead to a pregnancy, if indeed one of those involved could even get pregnant.
It's beyond me why Mike continues to post about this stuff. He has extremely incomplete and narrow views and it shows every time he posts.
Thanks but I was hoping Mike could explain his own post.
I still don't know what 'intrinsic right to sex trumps the rights of nature' means. Nobody has a 'right' to sex with another person.
It's a consensual act between two people and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. There is no 'right'.
I don't know how Mike is pitting that against 'rights of nature' as if they are in a battle.
I'm not sure if Mike has heard of contraception, and sex doesn't even need to include the kind of act that could potentially lead to a pregnancy, if indeed one of those involved could even get pregnant.
It's beyond me why Mike continues to post about this stuff. He has extremely incomplete and narrow views and it shows every time he posts.
Mink's post explains my meaning quite well (thanks Mink ). Unfortunately, I can't really get into it more here (see the moderator warning above).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Had she gotten pregnant at any time before we started trying for a baby, we probably would have rolled with it since we always knew we wanted to have kids. Once we are done having children, I will get a vasectomy, since that’s far easier and less invasive than tubal ligation.
