Choices [W:1315]

[Scrabaholic]

Overpopulation and mass murder are the topics

Incorrect. Abortion is the topic. Abortion is not murder, let alone mass murder.

 

[minnie616]

Therefore we agree that you have a choice which your husband, being a man, does not.

If he were the one who was pregnant he would have the choice.

Once a man can become pregnant he will have that choice.

I bet you can't hardly wait until it's your choice.

 

[FutureIncoming]

No, you did not prove a thing.

I MOST CERTAINLY DID. You have spouted numerous false statements --like the one quoted above.

I know me,

NOT AS WELL AS YOU THINK, BASED ON THE IGNORANT THINGS YOU HAVE POSTED.

I know what I posted,

POSSIBLY. That doesn't mean you truly understood the full ramifications of what you posted!

and I posted the truth

FALSE! You posted stuff you **claim** is the truth, but actually the truth and your claims are, provably, two wildly different things --as **I** have proved!

but just out of curiosity, show me!

I HAVE DONE THAT MULTIPLE TIMES. But since you are an abortion opponent, and it is apparently normal for abortion opponents to Deny Fact, you appear to have behaved true-to-form and ignored the data that proves you wrong. Tsk, tsk!

You, on the other hand have posted lies yourself.

AND YET YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO SPECIFY A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE "LIES". Why should anyone believe your worthless claim??

You expect us to believe that a fetus is not worthy to live,

NEITHER I NOR ANYONE ELSE NEED PROVE A NEGATIVE STATEMENT. It is upon **you** to prove the positive claim, that a fetus is worthy to live and commit worse assaults than any parasite. And since you have utterly failed to do that, It Logically Follows that a fetus is not inherently worthy to live. Simple!

and that is your downfall.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! See above!

I will not play your game of providing proof which you refuse to accept.

SO FAR YOUR SO-CALLED PROOF HAS CONSISTED OF PROVABLY FALSE STATEMENTS. No one need accept provably-false statements!!!

But I am not going away either.

THAT'S FINE; maybe you will actually learn something!

You will go down.

NOT AS A RESULT OF ANYTHING YOU ARE LIKELY TO POST.

 

[Josie]

Overpopulation and mass murder are the topics

Use the term "mass killing" since "murder" is a legal term.

 

[Celebrity]

If he were the one who was pregnant he would have the choice.

Once a man can become pregnant he will have that choice.

I bet you can't hardly wait until it's your choice.

Regardless of whether or not the fidelity of your marriage permits your husband to trust your judgement with regard to your choice, his participation is ultimately involuntary. You will make the final choice whether he wishes to have a fourth, fifth, or sixth child or not. You were the one who was pregnant. Therefore his participation in gestation is involuntary.

Involuntary does not necessarily mean that your husband does not want to do the same thing that you want to do. In fact, I am glad that the number of children works for you and your husband. But he does not have any control over your choice. He may influence your decision making process, but he does not force you to choose. If he or any other man forced you to make a choice, that might be grounds for prosecution in a court of law.

I am not asking you to make babies pop out of men's vaginas. That is nonsense.

What I am saying, and I believe you perfectly understand what I am saying even as you refuse to acknowledge its validity, is that no woman should force men to choose to do anything a certain way because she birthed a child. That includes your husband and all other men.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I know me

ONE MORE THNG --you are more similar to an ordinary "baby" than an unborn human is similar to an ordinary baby. That's because you, just like an ordinary baby, do not have an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ. You get oxygen from the atmosphere through your lungs, just like an ordinary baby --while an unborn human steals oxygen from the body of its hostess, using its placenta as the tool to accomplish that. You get nutrients into your body through your mouth and digestive system, just like an ordinary baby --while an unborn human steals nutrients from the body of its hostess, using its placenta as the tool to accomplish that. You excrete toxic biowastes wastes through your urethra and anus, just like an ordinary baby --while an unborn human dumps its toxic biowastes into the body of its hostess, using its placenta as the tool to accomplish that.

If you are so insistent on calling an unborn human a "baby", then why shouldn't YOU be called a "baby", since you are even-more similar to the baby than the unborn human???

 

[minnie616]

Regardless of whether or not the fidelity of your marriage permits your husband to trust your judgement with regard to your choice, his participation is ultimately involuntary. You will make the final choice whether he wishes to have a fourth, fifth, or sixth child or not. You were the one who was pregnant. Therefore his participation in gestation is involuntary.

Involuntary does not necessarily mean that your husband does not want to do the same thing that you want to do. In fact, I am glad that the number of children works for you and your husband. But he does not have any control over your choice. He may influence your decision making process, but he does not force you to choose. If he or any other man forced you to make a choice, that might be grounds for prosecution in a court of law.

I am not asking you to make babies pop out of men's vaginas. That is nonsense.

What I am saying, and I believe you perfectly understand what I am saying even as you refuse to acknowledge its validity, is that no woman should force men to choose to do anything a certain way because she birthed a child. That includes your husband and all other men.

This thread is about choices.

The courts have decided that abortion is a decision between the person who is pregnant and their doctor.

 

[ajn678]

ONE MORE THNG --you are more similar to an ordinary "baby" than an unborn human is similar to an ordinary baby. That's because you, just like an ordinary baby, do not have an attached placenta functioning as a vital organ. You get oxygen from the atmosphere through your lungs, just like an ordinary baby --while an unborn human steals oxygen from the body of its hostess, using its placenta as the tool to accomplish that. You get nutrients into your body through your mouth and digestive system, just like an ordinary baby --while an unborn human steals nutrients from the body of its hostess, using its placenta as the tool to accomplish that. You excrete toxic biowastes wastes through your urethra and anus, just like an ordinary baby --while an unborn human dumps its toxic biowastes into the body of its hostess, using its placenta as the tool to accomplish that.

If you are so insistent on calling an unborn human a "baby", then why shouldn't YOU be called a "baby", since you are even-more similar to the baby than the unborn human???

This is laughably stupid. You sound just as crazy as the people that go and blow up abortion clinics. The unborn human was created due to the mother and father of the child creating it. The unborn had no say as to whether or not it wanted to be created. This whole idea of a fetus being considered a parasite is so far from the truth its insane. And its where many people that would normally support abortions start to question whether you support a women's right to chose or you just simply celebrate the ending of life.

There's a line between supporting the legalization of abortions and pretending to be edgy and cool on the internet while you call unborn humans parasites and the women assault victims. This is hyperbolic to the extreme and makes me question what happened in your life to give you such a callous outlook on it.

 

[Blarkin]

It is ridiculous to me that anyone bothers with this argument at all. People caneed muddy the waters with pointless excuses and hide behind the guise of women's rights all they want to but anti abortionists and the general public doesn't have to fall for it.
Women should just drop the cover and be honest. The ugly truth sounds bad so no woman is ever going to say it. Call a spade, a spade and move on. Have enough guts to just say that a mistake was made that could ruin a woman's life and she doesn't want to, nor should she have to, take responsibility for it.
Irresponsibility and selfishness should not be concealed by a perverted use of women's rights protection. If a woman wants to have an abortion, have at it. But at the end of the day, no law or march is going to make what you are doing sound any better.

 

[FutureIncoming]

This is laughably stupid.

AND YET YOU HAVE FAILED TO SPECIFY EXACTLY HOW WHAT I WROTE QUALIFIES FOR THAT DESCRIPTION. Tsk, tsk!

You sound just as crazy as the people that go and blow up abortion clinics.

YOUR GENERIC DENUNCIATION IS STILL A FAILURE TO POINT OUT A SPECIFIC ERROR IN WHAT I WROTE. Tsk, tsk!

The unborn human was created due to the mother and father of the child creating it.[]
IGNORANTLY FALSE. Sperm and egg create an unborn human, not the mother and father! Remember where the blame gets placed when a wanted pregnancy fails to happen!!! The biological parents are by far not the only entities involved in producing a successful pregnancy.

The unborn had no say as to whether or not it wanted to be created.

TRUE. BUT IT ALSO HAS NO ABILITY TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT WANTS TO EXIST. So, what is the difference between that and, say, breeding some thoroughbred horses to obtain a colt that has no say in its existence?

This whole idea of a fetus being considered a parasite is so far from the truth its insane.

THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH, AND YOUR DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH GETS YOU NOWHERE. It is not at all necessary to think of a "fetus being considered a parasite" --It Is Only Necessary To Recognize The Fact That The Fetus **ACTS**WORSE** Than A Parasite. One could say that a fetus fails to qualify for "parasite" status exactly because it acts worse than a parasite! (Parasites don't infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bodies of their hosts, but unborn humans do that....)

And its where many people that would normally support abortions

BAD CHARACTERIZATION. Many people support the right to choose abortion, not the abortions themselves.

start to question whether you support a women's right to chose

NO NEED TO QUESTION --I OUTRIGHT BOLDLY STATE I SUPPORT WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I merely also happen to be willing to point out various reasons why a woman might choose to abort, instead of carry a pregnancy to term --but offering reasons is merely an aspect of Understanding The Big Picture; it is not-at-all the same as actively encouraging a woman to abort.

or you just simply celebrate the ending of life.

NOPE. NO CELEBRATION NECESSARY. FACTS ARE FACTS. An unborn human is what it is; it does what it does, and each pregnant woman is free to decide how much she wants to tolerate the situation --if she wants to pass her genes on to a new generation, then she almost always must choose to tolerate the actions of an unborn human. It Is Very Simple!

There's a line between supporting the legalization of abortions and pretending to be edgy and cool on the internet

WRONG LINE. The actual most-relevant line is the one separating the lies and propaganda of abortion opponents from the Facts. The message to which you replied was written to point out a particular Standard Idiocy spouted by many abortion opponents, calling an unborn human a "baby" when it is so very different from an ordinary baby that such a labeling should never, ever be done --because the Facts show that it makes more sense to call abortion opponents "babies", than to call unborn humans that!

while you call unborn humans parasites

I DO NO SUCH THING, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. It is not my fault if you do not pay close attention to the actual words I use!

and the women assault victims.

THAT IS ONLY TRUE OF WOMEN WHO DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT. Women who want to be pregnant are free to consider themselves to be voluntary life-support systems --they are giving sustenance, not victims of the taking of sustenance.

This is hyperbolic to the extreme

HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE HYPERBOLE SPOUTED BY ABORTION OPPONENTS??? Have you never heard about "fighting fire with fire"?

and makes me question what happened in your life to give you such a callous outlook on it.

YOUR MISINTERPRETATION OF MY MOTIVES IS YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE.

 

[ecofarm]

AND YET YOU HAVE FAILED TO SPECIFY EXACTLY HOW WHAT I WROTE QUALIFIES FOR THAT DESCRIPTION. Tsk, tsk!


YOUR GENERIC DENUNCIATION IS STILL A FAILURE TO POINT OUT A SPECIFIC ERROR IN WHAT I WROTE. Tsk, tsk!

The unborn human was created due to the mother and father of the child creating it.[]
IGNORANTLY FALSE. Sperm and egg create an unborn human, not the mother and father! Remember where the blame gets placed when a wanted pregnancy fails to happen!!! The biological parents are by far not the only entities involved in producing a successful pregnancy.


TRUE. BUT IT ALSO HAS NO ABILITY TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT WANTS TO EXIST. So, what is the difference between that and, say, breeding some thoroughbred horses to obtain a colt that has no say in its existence?


THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH, AND YOUR DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH GETS YOU NOWHERE. It is not at all necessary to think of a "fetus being considered a parasite" --It Is Only Necessary To Recognize The Fact That The Fetus **ACTS**WORSE** Than A Parasite. One could say that a fetus fails to qualify for "parasite" status exactly because it acts worse than a parasite! (Parasites don't infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bodies of their hosts, but unborn humans do that....)


BAD CHARACTERIZATION. Many people support the right to choose abortion, not the abortions themselves.


NO NEED TO QUESTION --I OUTRIGHT BOLDLY STATE I SUPPORT WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I merely also happen to be willing to point out various reasons why a woman might choose to abort, instead of carry a pregnancy to term --but offering reasons is merely an aspect of Understanding The Big Picture; it is not-at-all the same as actively encouraging a woman to abort.


NOPE. NO CELEBRATION NECESSARY. FACTS ARE FACTS. An unborn human is what it is; it does what it does, and each pregnant woman is free to decide how much she wants to tolerate the situation --if she wants to pass her genes on to a new generation, then she almost always must choose to tolerate the actions of an unborn human. It Is Very Simple!


WRONG LINE. The actual most-relevant line is the one separating the lies and propaganda of abortion opponents from the Facts. The message to which you replied was written to point out a particular Standard Idiocy spouted by many abortion opponents, calling an unborn human a "baby" when it is so very different from an ordinary baby that such a labeling should never, ever be done --because the Facts show that it makes more sense to call abortion opponents "babies", than to call unborn humans that!


I DO NO SUCH THING, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. It is not my fault if you do not pay close attention to the actual words I use!


THAT IS ONLY TRUE OF WOMEN WHO DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT. Women who want to be pregnant are free to consider themselves to be voluntary life-support systems --they are giving sustenance, not victims of the taking of sustenance.


HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE HYPERBOLE SPOUTED BY ABORTION OPPONENTS??? Have you never heard about "fighting fire with fire"?


YOUR MISINTERPRETATION OF MY MOTIVES IS YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE.

Wow, that's some real effort. I'm exhausted just scrolling past that.

(format error not mine)

 

[FutureIncoming]

It is ridiculous to me that anyone bothers with this argument at all. People caneed muddy the waters with pointless excuses and hide behind the guise of women's rights all they want to but anti abortionists and the general public doesn't have to fall for it.
Women should just drop the cover and be honest. The ugly truth sounds bad so no woman is ever going to say it. Call a spade, a spade and move on. Have enough guts to just say that a mistake was made that could ruin a woman's life and she doesn't want to, nor should she have to, take responsibility for it.
Irresponsibility and selfishness should not be concealed by a perverted use of women's rights protection. If a woman wants to have an abortion, have at it. But at the end of the day, no law or march is going to make what you are doing sound any better.

ARE YOU ARGUING FROM THE POSITION THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF HUMAN SEX IS REPRODUCTION? Because if you are, then (1) you are wrong, and (2) your conclusions derived from that position are also wrong. Human sex has the primary purpose of building a relationship ("pair bond") that **could** be strong enough to survive the stresses of child-raising. Meanwhile, biology doesn't care if the relationship is ready or not --or even if it is a completely wrong relationship --AND it is a Fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective. It is not irresponsible of a woman to do what she must to acquire a partner in child-raising --and it is not automatically her fault if her contraceptives fail.

 

[FutureIncoming]

(format error not mine)

YES, SORRY; I neglected to properly close a quotation.

 

[ecofarm]

YES, SORRY; I neglected to properly close a quotation.

No prob, just wanted to note it wasn't me in case you hadn't noticed and had edit-time remaining to fix it, or in case someone was confused by it appearing to be a big quote from the person to which you replied.

 

[Scrabaholic]

It is ridiculous to me that anyone bothers with this argument at all. People caneed muddy the waters with pointless excuses and hide behind the guise of women's rights all they want to but anti abortionists and the general public doesn't have to fall for it.
Women should just drop the cover and be honest. The ugly truth sounds bad so no woman is ever going to say it. Call a spade, a spade and move on. Have enough guts to just say that a mistake was made that could ruin a woman's life and she doesn't want to, nor should she have to, take responsibility for it.
Irresponsibility and selfishness should not be concealed by a perverted use of women's rights protection. If a woman wants to have an abortion, have at it. But at the end of the day, no law or march is going to make what you are doing sound any better.

Abortion is a very responsible thing to do when the woman knows she cannot or will not care for a child. It is NOT responsible to birth a child you cannot or will not take proper care of or to pawn it off on others to raise.

 

[RamFel]

It is ridiculous to me that anyone bothers with this argument at all. People caneed muddy the waters with pointless excuses and hide behind the guise of women's rights all they want to but anti abortionists and the general public doesn't have to fall for it.
Women should just drop the cover and be honest. The ugly truth sounds bad so no woman is ever going to say it. Call a spade, a spade and move on. Have enough guts to just say that a mistake was made that could ruin a woman's life and she doesn't want to, nor should she have to, take responsibility for it.
Irresponsibility and selfishness should not be concealed by a perverted use of women's rights protection. If a woman wants to have an abortion, have at it. But at the end of the day, no law or march is going to make what you are doing sound any better.

The Women do hide And all they have is excuses, not reasons. Worse they have enablers to help them.

 

[RamFel]

ARE YOU ARGUING FROM THE POSITION THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF HUMAN SEX IS REPRODUCTION? Because if you are, then (1) you are wrong, and (2) your conclusions derived from that position are also wrong. Human sex has the primary purpose of building a relationship ("pair bond") that **could** be strong enough to survive the stresses of child-raising. Meanwhile, biology doesn't care if the relationship is ready or not --or even if it is a completely wrong relationship --AND it is a Fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective. It is not irresponsible of a woman to do what she must to acquire a partner in child-raising --and it is not automatically her fault if her contraceptives fail.

The whole entire purpose of sex is to give birth to babies.

 

[FutureIncoming]

The whole entire purpose of sex is to give birth to babies.

NOT FOR HUMANS. For other species, they generally **only** have sex when reproduction is possible, but for humans, not only can they have sex almost any time, the "right" time to have sex for reproduction is hidden --for most of humanity's existence it simply wasn't known that sex led to babies.

The net result, for many millennia, was that for humans wanting offspring, they were kind-of forced to have sex often, in order to randomly hit the right time! Nowadays we are much better-informed about the subject, and have tools that can pretty-accurately detect the right time for reproductive sex --but that hasn't stopped humans from having sex at all sorts of other times, entirely because the actual primary purpose of human sex is not reproduction. For humans, reproduction is nothing more than a side-effect of sex. A very probably side-effect, but nothing more than a side-effect of sex.

Will the idiocies spouted by abortion opponents (who possibly deserve to be called "babies" more than unborn humans deserve to be called "babies") never end??? Do you think telling folks they can only have sex when they want to reproduce (and only during a certain time of the month) is going to gain you supporters? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!

 

[FutureIncoming]

A very probably side-effect

TYPO. That's what I get when thinking "likely" while trying to write "probable"

 

[Scrabaholic]

The whole entire purpose of sex is to give birth to babies.

If that were true, women would be horny only when ovulating, or within a day or so of it.

 

[soylentgreen]

There are no red herrings from my side on this board. But there Inniouowe l.6










L

Once again you dodge he question. It is a red herring as you must realise that your own definition of where life begins is merely an arbitrary choice.

 

[soylentgreen]

. I am using gods laws. Not mans,

The hypocrisy of this one asking for proof. Care to prove your fake god exist or shall we just accept it for what it is. A man making up a ****ty lay and justifying it by calling on an imaginary god to explain it.

 

[RamFel]

NOT FOR HUMANS. For other species, they generally **only** have sex when reproduction is possible, but for humans, not only can they have sex almost any time, the "right" time to have sex for reproduction is hidden --for most of humanity's existence it simply wasn't known that sex led to babies.

The net result, for many millennia, was that for humans wanting offspring, they were kind-of forced to have sex often, in order to randomly hit the right time! Nowadays we are much better-informed about the subject, and have tools that can pretty-accurately detect the right time for reproductive sex --but that hasn't stopped humans from having sex at all sorts of other times, entirely because the actual primary purpose of human sex is not reproduction. For humans, reproduction is nothing more than a side-effect of sex. A very probably side-effect, but nothing more than a side-effect of sex.

Will the idiocies spouted by abortion opponents (who possibly deserve to be called "babies" more than unborn humans deserve to be called "babies") never end??? Do you think telling folks they can only have sex when they want to reproduce (and only during a certain time of the month) is going to gain you supporters? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!

You know, I almost agree. Sex can be something that can be enjoyed by anyone, for any reasons, at any time. But for the most part, its first main purpose, was procreation.

 

[ajn678]

AND YET YOU HAVE FAILED TO SPECIFY EXACTLY HOW WHAT I WROTE QUALIFIES FOR THAT DESCRIPTION. Tsk, tsk!


YOUR GENERIC DENUNCIATION IS STILL A FAILURE TO POINT OUT A SPECIFIC ERROR IN WHAT I WROTE. Tsk, tsk!

The unborn human was created due to the mother and father of the child creating it.[]
IGNORANTLY FALSE. Sperm and egg create an unborn human, not the mother and father! Remember where the blame gets placed when a wanted pregnancy fails to happen!!! The biological parents are by far not the only entities involved in producing a successful pregnancy.


TRUE. BUT IT ALSO HAS NO ABILITY TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT WANTS TO EXIST. So, what is the difference between that and, say, breeding some thoroughbred horses to obtain a colt that has no say in its existence?


THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH, AND YOUR DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH GETS YOU NOWHERE. It is not at all necessary to think of a "fetus being considered a parasite" --It Is Only Necessary To Recognize The Fact That The Fetus **ACTS**WORSE** Than A Parasite. One could say that a fetus fails to qualify for "parasite" status exactly because it acts worse than a parasite! (Parasites don't infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the bodies of their hosts, but unborn humans do that....)


BAD CHARACTERIZATION. Many people support the right to choose abortion, not the abortions themselves.


NO NEED TO QUESTION --I OUTRIGHT BOLDLY STATE I SUPPORT WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I merely also happen to be willing to point out various reasons why a woman might choose to abort, instead of carry a pregnancy to term --but offering reasons is merely an aspect of Understanding The Big Picture; it is not-at-all the same as actively encouraging a woman to abort.


NOPE. NO CELEBRATION NECESSARY. FACTS ARE FACTS. An unborn human is what it is; it does what it does, and each pregnant woman is free to decide how much she wants to tolerate the situation --if she wants to pass her genes on to a new generation, then she almost always must choose to tolerate the actions of an unborn human. It Is Very Simple!


WRONG LINE. The actual most-relevant line is the one separating the lies and propaganda of abortion opponents from the Facts. The message to which you replied was written to point out a particular Standard Idiocy spouted by many abortion opponents, calling an unborn human a "baby" when it is so very different from an ordinary baby that such a labeling should never, ever be done --because the Facts show that it makes more sense to call abortion opponents "babies", than to call unborn humans that!


I DO NO SUCH THING, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. It is not my fault if you do not pay close attention to the actual words I use!


THAT IS ONLY TRUE OF WOMEN WHO DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT. Women who want to be pregnant are free to consider themselves to be voluntary life-support systems --they are giving sustenance, not victims of the taking of sustenance.


HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE HYPERBOLE SPOUTED BY ABORTION OPPONENTS??? Have you never heard about "fighting fire with fire"?


YOUR MISINTERPRETATION OF MY MOTIVES IS YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE.

You don't even make any points, you just spout off your opinions as facts, when they are extremely far from them. Anyways, have better things to do than waste my time on someone that insists on typing in caps for almost their entire post.

 

[FutureIncoming]

You know, I almost agree. Sex can be something that can be enjoyed by anyone, for any reasons, at any time. But for the most part, its first main purpose,

EXISTED LONG BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED INTO EXISTENCE. Evolution, however, affects more things than the physical characteristics of species; it can also affect behavior patterns of species --you know full well that cats are mostly solitary animals while dogs are mostly pack animals, even though both have a common ancestor-species.

was procreation.

FOR HUMANS, THE PURPOSE OF SEX EVOLVED WITH THE SPECIES. That's why for us, almost uniquely on Earth, reproduction is just a side-effect of sex. The thing that makes it work, Evolutionarily speaking, is the fact that the enjoyability of sex encourages lots of sex. Logically, any fertile couple having enough sex is likely to trigger the side-effect of reproduction! And so long as that happens for enough members of the species, Evolution is just fine with reproduction merely being a side-effect of human sex.