3 ms·
Well, in a case where the intention at the outset is to have sex for pleasure only and explicitly try and prevent it from happening, is it more immoral to take
by brailsafe 3y ago
Well, in a case where the intention at the outset is to have sex for pleasure only and explicitly try and prevent it from happening, is it more immoral to take it to completion against the others intention to participate, or more immoral to excuse yourself from raising it on the basis you don't think you and the other parent will be able to raise the kid without too much conflict?
Seems nuanced to me.
If you go at it alone despite obviously bad circumstances, and you end up not winning that roll of the dice on your ability to do it alone long term, did you fuck up or did they?
- Dalewyn 3y agoThere is always a non-zero chance for conception if you engage in sex. That means you (and the other party) have a responsibility to care for the child if you hit that non-zero chance. If you don't want to (or know you can't) be responsible for such consequences, the responsible way forward is don't have sex. It's really that simple. I reiterate: Those who consensually have sex and then refuse to own up for their behaviour are worthless people.
- brailsafe 3y ago> If you don't want to (or know you can't) be responsible for such consequences, the responsible way forward is don't have sex. It's really that simple. > I reiterate: Those who consensually have sex and then refuse to own up for their behaviour are worthless people. Nah, sex is great, mistakes happen, get off your high horse and stop casting judgement.