Abortion survivor story

[Soleron]

Jay520 said:

Soleron said:

...

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?

I disagree that the act of having sex alone commits you to supporting any resulting child. For either sex.

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 is unfortunate, yes, but not something to be solved with a Responsibility Hammer. I think enacting laws to make society look like you want is worse than the alternative.

e.g. we should ban alcohol because some people might drink-drive
e.g. we should ban P2P protocols because some people might use it to share copyrighted files
e.g. we should ban public protesting because it might lead to violence

Now, I agree it's consistent to hold those views. I just don't believe you get a desirable society with such bans.

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.

That's not a problem for the government to solve.

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

Disagree. People aren't not-having-sex because of child support concerns. For example, legalising drugs doesn't increase drug use. 

I disagree with your premise that undesirable behaviour would measurably decrease.

AND I disagree that, even if it DOESdecrease, that's not a good reason to do it. I think the government effectively punishing sex is worse than the societal consequences of them not.

, 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.

Again, I don't think that would happen, and I think if it did happen it's not for the government to reduce via laws anyway.

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".

I'm confused as to why you think using the law as a blunt instrument to create the society you want is an ethical, good or practical idea.

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.

Your thought process:

- Here's what society is now
- Here's what I want it to look like
- Legislate from A to B

I understand that. But this is the kind of logic used to take away all kinds of freedoms, and ultimately even you don't get what you want. I think people should be given the choice to make the wrong choice.

I have a question for you. Can you point to any examples of, social freedoms having been increased, there being runaway negative consequences for the country that did it? ("extremely worse"/"extreme increase")