| Soleron said:
1. No. There should be a second decision point for the man before birth as to whether he intends to support it. Then with that knowledge the woman is free to keep it or not. Practically this is the best possible ending for both parties. Both get to make an informed decision and consequences aren't forced on anyone. 2. This kind of thing (1% of people get absolutely destroyed; 99% get away with it) is what I consider the worst possible outcome for any law. Like when everyone shares CDs but one guy gets a $60m infringement judgement. Or everyone makes racist remarks at some point but one guy goes to jail for 2 years over a Twitter comment. THAT is the real injustice in society. 3. Yes, both sexes should be able to have unlimited unprotected consensual sex without legal consequences. In fact I think that's a principle worth building our society on. Does sex need to have consequences? Like it's wrong or icky or something? |
1. I'm not sure why you consider having unprotected sex to be an uninformed decision, or that the consequences would be "forced" upon the participants. When someone has unprotected sex, they are fully informed of the consequences of their actions. As such, they should be held responsible for their actions. The consequences aren't forced upon them. Why do you think a man shouldn't have to be held accountable for his actions, when he was always completely informed of the implications of those actions? This goes against the traditional interpretation of what "accountability" should be defined as. What is your interpretation of "accountability" and why do you think it is superior?
2. Honestly, after thinking about it, even if we could theoretically prove that a man's condom broke, I still think he should be held accountable for a pregnancy. Yeah, when the man used a condom, it was unlikely that a pregnancy would occur. But why should probability invalidate a man's accountability and responsibility? If accountability refers to a person being responsible for his/her actions when they’re aware of the consequences, then the likelihood of the development of consequences should have no significance. Additionally, if you were to erase accountability solely because of probability, then that would be extremely unfair to the person who is victimized.
But of course, what I said in this second paragraph only makes sense if you agree with my first paragraph.
3. Unlimited unprotected sex in itself is not morally wrong, but the implications of the activity are quite devastating. In a perfect world with perfect people, I agree there would be nothing wrong with this: people would have lots and lots of sex, but they would always be in perfect agreement on if they should have a child or an abortion. So all would be good.
However, reality is very different: with each unprotected sexual encounter, there's going to always be a certain percentage of disagreements between the man and woman concerning if they want to have a child. Lots of times the woman has a child against the man's intentions, and so the baby oftentimes grows up without a close father figure, and many times in a poor economic environment. This can be explained because people who disagree on having a child - yet still foolishly choose to have unprotected sex - are more likely to make unfit parents.
Already we have too many kids with minimum paternal support and poor environments. Yet with your idea, there would be extremely more of these children. Further, these children would be extremely worse since (a) that minimum paternal support would vanish, and (b) the environments would be subsequently worse. Allow me to elaborate. If there were no consequences for unprotected sex, then there would be an extreme increase in unprotected sex, and thus more unfortunate children described above. The minimum paternal support (child support) would vanish because it wouldn't be legally coerced. And of course the lack of paternal support for these children would worsen the already poor environments.
Not to mention the increase in STDs.
So your idea would damage both the society (crime) and the children affected; not only in magnitude, but also in quantity. I'm honestly confused as to how you could honestly think this is a "principle worth building society". This would be nothing but bad news. Unprotected sex should be reserved for couples in relatively deeper relationships, since they would have an understanding on the expectations regarding a pregnancy. Your idea would not increase the amount of unprotected sex involving couples in these deep relationships. Your idea would increase the amount of unprotected sex for those in one-night stands and unstable relationships. The implications for society and children would be devastating.
