Isn't male masturbation just like abortion?

Question

As a pro-choice person, if I am to believe, as my opponents do, that life is sacred from the moment of conception, shouldn’t men be discouraged from masturbating because ejaculate contains the possibility of life? Shouldn’t the indiscriminate disposal of sperm be nationally scrutinized and labeled just as immoral? What’s the difference between spilling the gunk from your junk and the morning after pill? Both deliberately prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, yet there is barely an uproar over the opposite s*x pleasuring themselves.

So, boys, abstinence seems to be the only choice, because I don’t think swallowing is a morally favorable alternative, either.

BTW, I will not be surprised when some immature jerk off [pun intended] reports this as inappropriate.

Answer 1

I don't think your post/question is inappropriate, but I do think you are way off base on this one.

There is a BIG difference between preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg or stopping the development of that egg

and

not causing an egg to be fertilized in the first place.

To follow your injunction against male masturbation (because the sole purpose of ejaculate is fertilization and in that light all ejaculate contains the possibility of life) to its next logical conclusion, we would have to say that each egg released meets the same definition.  If ejaculation should only take place when there is a high possibility of fertilization, then might we conclude that a woman is responsible for seeing to it that the egg she releases be given every chance of being fertilized?

It seems to me much more likely a woman releases more eggs than she is ever meant to carry to a full-term pregnancy, and that men release much more sperm in their lifetimes than are ever meant to fertilize an egg, PRECISELY because we want SOME of each to result in procreation.

Answer 2

II will answer the main question (although I have read the rest and additions thereto).

Masturbation is not like abortion because an abortion involves a fertilised egg.  Masturbation is just an action...which may or may not result in ejaculation.  If there is no ejaculation then there is no  'problem'.

Having said that though, an abortion need not be the result of a choice either.  A miscarriage is also considered an abortion...but there is no choice involved.  Something just went wrong during the 'cooking' process

To address what you mean though - ejaculate contains half the ingredients in the recipe and the 'cake' is not even in sight, whereas an abortion involves the completed 'cake'.  It doesn't mean that the 'cake' is going to turn out the way we like it once it starts to 'cook'.

I disagree that masturbation 'prevents the implantation of an egg like the morning after pill' because, unlike the morning after pill, there is no egg involved (fertilised or otherwise) in ejaculate hence no 'chance of life'.

Now let's look at the alternatives using your idea.

a) m********e (to ejaculation) --> no egg fertilised --> sperm wasted

b) Don't ejaculate --> sperm get reabsorbed --> sperm wasted

c) Don't ejaculate --> blocked up --> procedure to unblock --> sperm wasted

d) Rape --> sperm not wasted --> crime commited

e) s*x with partner --> partner has headache -->  b) or c)

f) s*x with partner --> egg fertilised --> morning after pill --> sperm wasted

g) s*x with partner --> egg fertilised --> abortion --> sperm wasted

h) s*x with partner --> egg fertilised --> baby

So it seems that the only way not to 'waste' the sperm is to have s*x with your partner with the intent to have a child, or rape someone.  Maybe those who rape women have the same belief as you and don't want to waste their sperm?

Answer 3

ha thats sooo true.

edit: wait so that would mean female menstration is like abortion too?

Answer 4

You have issues.

there is no life until the sperm meets the egg.

If what you say is = to abortion then women who still have they're periods are "immoral" too cuz they are releasing eggs with menstruation.

is this abortion? I think not.

The pill is a choice as well, preventing the release of eggs. Abortion???????

and you STILL have issues.

Answer 5

Women shouldn't be allowed to menstruate for the same reason.  Isn't their (excuse the misuse of the word) logic lovely?

Answer 6

No, and I think that the pro-lifers have plenty to refute this (although I myself am also pro-choice):

1)  Neither a woman's eggs nor a man's sperm have the capacity independantly to develop into a person.

2)  Eggs and sperm come and go even when people aren't having s*x (that's what a period is).

3)  Even when one sperm reaches an egg, hundreds of others ejacualated at the same time don't.

4)  All guys who don't m********e get wet dreams.

Answer 7

Kudos to you for asking a hilarious and ballsy (pun intended) question. I disagree with you though. The sperm never comes in contact with an egg and there is no way to know for sure that if the masturbator were to ejaculate that same "load" into a woman it would have led to the conception of a child. Besides, realistically there is no possible way to monitor something like that like. You could never regulate what people do to themselves whenever, wherever they want to. If people, the government, tried it would be a huge big brother type move on their part.

Edit: I think the biggest difference is that the pill is specifically intended to stop a woman from becoming pregnant. Masturbation isn't about preventing a pregnancy, it's about pleasing yourself when there is no one else there to please you. Also, I think the people who brought up the wet dream issue have a good point. That's involuntary so what are we supposed to do about that? I honestly think this is like comparing apples to car batteries, these two issues aren't even on the same page. Come on lady, let the boys be boys.

Answer 8

Does this mean I have aborted babies when I have had "wet dreams?  Oh the can of worms you have opened.

Answer 9

The ancient Hebrew culture considered it a sin for a man to "spill his seed on the ground."  Some people who don't have anything else to worry about still consider this to be true.

Answer 10

Hmm interesting one!

When I read the title to this I expected it to be a really stupid question but it's actually quite an interesting point ethics wise!

(I won't offer you my opinion on the morality etc because I don't think thats what you're after, and anyway personally I'm completely pro-choice like you and not at all against the morning after pill etc)

I guess it could be argued that the moral difference between masturbation and the use of the morning after pill and abortion is:

When you ejaculate, however many million of those sperm go to waste anyway as nature intended - only (usually) one, if any, was ever going to form a zygote. This one 'lucky' sperm is presumably not decided from the moment of ejaculation, as it surely depends on environmental factors within the womans body etc. So whereas the morning after pill prevents the release of the ONE egg that would definitely be used in the event of fertilisation, OR prevents the already fertilised egg from embedding into the uterus lining (and no need to explain what abortion does!), thus targetting one specific thing that was destined for fertilisation - the effect of ejaculation is so dilute as each individual sperm only ever had a one in however-many-million chance of fertilising the egg in the first place.

But I can see where you're coming from, because there is still the CHANCE.

Also it could be argued that a lack of masturbation will mean sperm is 'sitting around' in a males testes for longer, which could lead to vasocongestion, and if the sperm is older and cells have died, when the male eventually does ejaculate into a women he will be less likely to be able to fertilise her egg as his sperm will not be as healthy of that of a man who ejaculates on a regular basis. So could it be argued that regular ejaculation is a long term necessity to give the sperm released during intercourse the best chance of fertilising?

EDIT:

I always find it amusing when people react personally to someone raising an objective, moral point for the purpose of debate. These people obviously wouldn't do too well if they were studying an ethics subject!!