At what point does a woman lose her self-ownership? Why do you never consider that? Remember: she owns her body. That includes the womb. Even if you counter with “she doesn’t own the fetus”, that does nothing to counter the fact that she owns her body. Your argument fails to deal with that. Remember to consider such things.
And yet sex does not result in pregnancy every time. Saying that sex is solely for procreation is, in fact, a red herring.
It’s all about stripping the fallacies away and becoming a better thinker.
You’re phrasing this as if evolution is a rational being with motives for its actions. Evolution did not give us pleasure from sex in order to influence our behaviour. That implies a purpose. The opposite is true - animals (including humans) that find sex pleasuable tend to engage in sex more often, leading to more procreation, leading to the ability to feel pleasure during sex being a common trait.
Mutations happen all the time in all species. Those that result in traits that increase reproduction, and therefore get passed on more often, eventaully become normal for that species. That’s pretty much what evolution is.
Sex is a means to procrete. It’s also a means to feel pleasure. It’s also a means to sell things. In some area, it’s a means of punishment. Unless you bring God(s) into the discussion, there is no objective aside from the obvectives of those engaining in the act - to be parents, to experience an orgasm, to get paid, to punish, to live through this.
If you think the final objective of sex is just pleasure then I’ll simply agree to disagree with you.
Likewise, evolution’s final objective for infecting people with pathogens is to destroy genetically weaker people. If you are a doctor who is trying to cure an infectious illness, you are basically in violation of nature’s plan.
Please don’t take a religious argument and substitute “evolution” for “God”. It’s just doesn’t work. God is an entity that has reason, and therefore can create and implement a plan. Evolution and nature are not. Evolution has no objective and nature has no plan. These are not intelligent beings with purposes. Evolution is a process that describes how a species changes over time. There is no purpose to these changes.
God is an entity that has reason
I know nothing about God.
Evolution has no objective and nature has no plan. These are not intelligent beings with purposes.
I don’t agree. Evolution apparently optimizes living things to adapt to physical conditions. The result appears to be greater numbers of living things and great diversity. Kind of like how the Invisible Hand optimizes the structure of production to adapt to physical conditions, resulting in division of labor. The Invisible Hand must have more intelligence than a single individual, as it solves problems that an individual cannot fathom. See “I, Pencil” for details. Just as a human being (a collection of cells) can be a being with intelligence, I think a collection of living things can be a being with intelligence as well.
I see no objective moral basis for being for evolution (e.g. agreeing to not have children if u have some genetic problem), or against it. Likewise, I see no objective moral basis for being for or against abortion.
I think that it should be noted that evolution is not planned. Nature produces mutations sporadically and those that benefit a species are retained while those that don’t are phased out.
Going even further, different mutations may be retained by different parts of the same species. For example, humans with darker skin have had a much higher survival rate in warmer climates, as the darker pigment assists in skin cancer prevention. Likewise, humans with lighter skin have had a much higher survival rate in colder climates, as the light skin absorbs vitamin D more readily.