To David F.

I though I answered your question in my last reply to you. But here it is again.

Abortion is in the same light a solution to a society addicted to sex. Except that abortion is actually killing. In this way I see both casual sex, (and casually having sex early in the relationships) as well as abortion as an evil in society. Abortion is the worse of the two, but casualness to sex feeds the issue of abortion. Does that answer your question?

Regarding our different views of sex. It is a normal human drive. It is also marketed and promoted. Teasing the public on sexual themes to sell a product, and having love affair romances that the protagonists leave their marriages, for their "true love" (latest sexy adventure), or stories showing that love is really expressed in sex. Each of these takes a normal human drive, and pushes it beyond where it should go.

Anger is also a normal human drive. But it is a sign of maturity to remain calm. In the same way it should be counted as maturity to restrain sexual acts until there is a committed relationship.

To Banjo Paterson. Abortion is killing an innocent. But part of the problem is that abortion is seen as the only available solution. Not just a solution to a pregnancy. Look past that to ask why was the pregnancy a problem in the first place. Men not staying in a relationship and pushing the burden on the woman is very much part of the problem. (There are several other problems "fixed" with abortion. But again abortion is killing an innocent).

To Toni Lavis. There are laws protecting some animals, but killing an innocent human is usually called murder. (Killing in self defense, in an act of war, or as a capital punishment to the worst of crimes are not the same as killing an innocent person).

Dear NNS,

I agree that sex should not promoted as a marketing tool. It is a human drive that should be enjoyed freely as much as possible. Abortion is not unique to this society. It is practiced wherever a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy. You write as though abortion is something new. I believe the following quotes from H. L. Mencken are relevant to what seems to me to be your view of life.

"The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

Dear NNS,

When I wrote of sex as being a normal human drive you wrote:

"Anger is also a normal human drive. But it is a sign of maturity to remain calm. In the same way it should be counted as maturity to restrain sexual acts until there is a committed relationship."

Anger is not a normal human drive. The human race can live without anger. Regarding anger as a normal human drive indicates a lack of understanding of basic human drives. Some individuals respond with anger rather than coolly evaluate a situation. It is interesting and a bit puzzling why anyone would mention anger in response to a remark about sex. Does the thought of sex make you angry? Are you bothered that people may be enjoying sex without the limitations you would put on that enjoyment? Possibly your anger stems from the fact that people feel free from your beliefs, feel free from your view of morality and feel free to reject the mumbojumbo you keep serving up.

I think a mature person is capable of enjoying sex without the constraints you would put upon that person. We have different definitions of maturity. I feel your Puritanism is a sign of immaturity. Relax. It is possible to enjoy living without controlling other people. Grow up.

//There are laws protecting some animals, but killing an innocent human is usually called murder.//

Right, but what about ET?

I asked if it's OK to kill ET.

ET as in 'ET the Extra-Terrestrial'. Weird looking little dude. He wanted to phone home. You have seen the film, right? It's a modern classic. I mean obviously ET is fictional, but that's of no concern when considering thought experiments in philosophy. If I had a dollar for every 'brain in vat' problem I'd considered.... nobody really keeps brains in vats, at least not the way philosophers do.

So now that we're both on the same page... ET: is it OK to kill him or not?

I ask because I'm less interested in what people believe than why they believe what they believe.

For instance, I have no idea why anybody would be concerned about this:

//My views on contraception is that it is a means to reduce pregnancy in a society that makes no intention to resist or reduce it's sexual output. Instead sex and themes of sex are promoted//

Unless they started from the premise that sex (at least sex outside marriage) is something that is dirty and shameful. Which obviously you do; but I'm less interested in the fact that you believe that than why you believe it. It's not a particularly common view, from a historical perspective - most societies have been accepting of sex as a normal and healthy thing.

Not all of them, of course - the Victorians were very of much of a similar mindset to yourself. And in their case, I can form a plausible hypothesis as to why: the Industrial revolution pushing increasingly large numbers of people together in an age before antibiotics, latex condoms, etc... VD (along with every other kind of disease) would have gone through the roof, and if you caught the pox back then it was effectively a death sentence. No wonder they formed some strong attitudes against sex.

But I've no idea why those attitudes would persist into the modern day.... actually, now that I think about what I just said about the pox in the 19th century, one thought does occur to me. Were you sexually active when news of the AIDS epidemic first started to filter through into the mainstream media (once they'd got over the gay panic phase and started pointing out that any unprotected sex could be death sentence)? Because I can see why that sort of thing might turn a bloke off sex.

I'm interested in why you believe what you believe about abortion as well. I'm not interested in hearing you restate what you believe over and over again, I know what you believe already and repetition becomes dull and tiresome. I know you believe that you shouldn't kill any human except in self-defence, war or in cases of capital punishment (and I disagree strongly about the latter).

I'm interested in knowing why you think humans, in particular, shouldn't be killed. I mean, obviously there must be something special about us if it's OK to kill species that are remarkably similar to humans (all the great apes, but chimps and bonobos in particular), but not to OK to kill humans. What is the meaningful physical distinction betwixt us and bonobos that leads to that meaningful moral distinction that means they can be kept in zoos and we can't. There must be one, right? Or it wouldn't be OK to keep them in zoos, and I'd be out protesting for bonobo rights. So just what is that difference? Please, I'm curious.

Oh, and don't forget about ET.