//I think we're differing on our use of casual sex.//

Yes, I suspect we are. I think you're employing it as a euphemism for fornication - any sex outside of marriage. Whereas I consider casual sex to be a subset of broader category of fornication.

//Adultery also fits into this sitution...//

Round 2, eh? Sorry, NNS, I can only award you points for effort once.

There's a very, very big difference between adultery and fornication. Adultery is necessarily immoral. Fornication is not.

Everybody knows that adultery is wrong. It's wrong because it breaks the Golden Rule: treat other people the way you'd like to be treated. It is a form of betrayal, considered the worst of sins by Dante. If you wouldn't want to be betrayed like that, you shouldn't do it to other people. And if you do, you're a dick, pure and simple.

That applies to those within the relationship and to anybody outside the relationship, but only if the outside party is knowing accomplice. If they're in the dark and unaware that they are party to adultery, then the moral fault lies not with them but with the person who deceived them.

Fornication, as far as I can see, doesn't necessarily break the Golden Rule. Fornication does not have to involve treating people in a way that you wouldn't be happy to be treated. If it did, I wouldn't be up for it.

//The criticism of ruining people's happiness could be applied to causes that sought to stop drunk driving and driving under the influence.//

No, it couldn't. Anti drink driving initiatives don't seek to stop people enjoying the pleasures of alcohol; they seek to stop people behaving recklessly whilst drunk. They don't say 'don't have any fun' like puritans and wowsers do, they say 'go ahead and have your fun but stay safe and don't be a bloody drongo - here's some useful advice on how to do that'.

Which is pretty much the message of every safe sex program everywhere, except for the abstinence based ones which don't give any useful advice on how to stay safe and are, unsurprisingly, not as effective as the sensible ones.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Famine and food shortage kills more people every year than road accidents and abortion combined.

Despite that (or, perhaps, partly because of that) the countries that are most affected by famine and food shortage also happen to have some of the highest birth rates in the world.

Here is the list of the top 12 currently affected by food shortage :

Zambia ………………………………....... birth rate - 41.5/1000 population
Burundi………………………………………………. - 41.3
Somalia ……………………………………………… - 39.6
Madagascar ………………………………………... - 38.1
Nigeria ………………………………………………. - 36.9
Ethiopia ……………………………………………... - 36.5
Chad …………………………………………………. - 35.6
Timor-Leste …………………………………………..- 33.4
Eritrea …………………………………………………- 29.6
Yemen ……………………………………………….. - 28.4
Sudan ………………………………………………… - 27.9
Comoros ……………………………………………... - 26.1

The average birth rate of these twelve countries is 34.6, almost three times the birth rate of Australia (12.1).

It is reported that of the 870 million people who lacked food in 2014, it was estimated by the World Food Programme that 98% lived in developing countries :

http://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/the-worlds-10-hungriest-countries/

CBS News reported in 2017 that 20 million people in 4 countries (Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) were on the brink of famine :

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20-million-people-in-4-countries-on-the-brink-of-famine/

The average birth rate of these four countries is 33.2 – again, almost three times the birth rate of Australia.

One would expect that the families of such poor countries, so badly affected by food shortage, would refrain from having more children, but that is not the case. They continue to have more and more children, many of whom die from malnutrition within the first five years of their birth.

Giving birth to children in such conditions can hardly be considered any better, morally, than having an abortion.

Communist China introduced strict birth control measures in 1979 with its one-child policy which became two-child policy in 2016. There are no reliable birth and abortion statistics, but it is thought that current annual births are in the region of 17 million and total annual abortions about 7 million. There is some speculation that China is now considering abandoning birth control altogether, given the persistently low birth rate and aging population :

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/prc/ab-prcp.html

.

To Toni Lavis.

I'm glad we both agree on how bad adultery is. If you do it your a dick. Fully agree. As for fornication versus waiting until marriage. I'll say that waiting until marriage would be ideal. To my knowledge I don't know anyone who has waited until marriage. But at the very least I would stand by the idea to not have sex until you get to know someone and form a bond that has a lasting relationship to it. A commitment that can be more dependable. Can't garentee anything is full proof dependable because marriages too often end in divorce. But at least be in a relationship for a few months before having sex. At least 6 months would be great.

I looked up google's definition of casual sex, and Google seems to agree with you on what that term means. However in my opinion sex is too casual in it's occurrence. Back to back relationships lasting no more then a week, some no more then a day before a bitter breakup, to often still have a spark that leads to sex and just as easily a different issue sparks a fight ending everything with as much fireworks in anger as there was before in passion. This in my opinion is wrong. We give ourselves up to easily and in the end I think sex is worth more than that. Should be given to those that can be trusted with it more then just passing it out because your labeled yourself in a relationship for a day or 2 weeks.

(Continued)

(Continued)

With that said, I'm sure it's no surprise that I'm also against casual sex without a relationship. If it wasn't for the issue of abortion I could let it go easier and say it's not hurting anyone else, even though I think it's wrong and harms the people doing it. But because of abortion I can't just say two (or more) consenting adults having fun. To many babies die tragically without our choosing to add to that number willingly, by killing them before they have the chance to be born.

On the matters of casualness of sex in relationships, I stand by my views that I said earlier. And though I disagree with casual sex outside of a relationship also, I'll acknowledge there is a difference between sex in a relationship and and sex without relationships.

To David F.

You accuse me of only using the words I use to be emotional instead of having a rational discussion. Yet you are doing your best to avoid a rational discussion by your ranting of "all hail the fetus" and in your address to me the term "undead human." If you truly wanted a rational discussion you would not use this kind of approach. So by all means live by your own standards instead of being hypocritical about them. As for my wording I've explained my stance. Fetus is a medical term, and has been used to hide behind when unfolding other rationalizations to distance abortions from actually killing anyone. "If a fetus really a person yet" kind of discussions. It is sickening that a small change of a word can be the means of rationalizing and choosing to kill a person that a mother is pregnant with. If you would like to discuss the matter rationally, then here's your chance.

What is the difference in behavior or identity between a fetus (medical term for unborn baby), and a neonate (baby within the first 28 days of birth). Infant is the term for babies under a year old, though toddler is also used in this stage of development. I ask because there is some surprising findings of early fetuses behaving as neonate a and infants do. Such as sucking on their thumbs as seen in ultra sound scan pictures.

If you see no distinguishing difference between an unborn baby, and a newborn, then there's no rationality to make a fuss over my use of the term "unborn baby."

I'm sorry for your cousin, but suicide is not a good enough reason to kill by abortion.