"OK so you can sidestep ethical concerns if it costs too much?"

Why are your ethics more than mine. Morals are relative. We just change the ethics like we always do.

If we are talking morality. Then how cheap or expensive it is to do doesn't matter.

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.

It's tricker than that, because a father financially responsible for the child whether he wants to or not.

It's a pretty deep issue where no cases is going to be exactly the same.

Edit: Nevermind. I see this has been talked about quite a bit. You can pass me up.

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")

Abortions should be encouraged for people that can't support or don't want kids. Or would just be terrible parents.

There are too many unwanted kids in the world. There are way too many people period, but the crime reduction in the 90's was thought to be caused by the improving economy and a by product of abortion becoming legal everywhere after Row v Wade.

People want to make abortion illegal to punish women for having sex. Women often have spontaneous abortions, and most women lose their first pregnancy and most don't even know it. It's a natural way the body tries to make sure it only bring in healthy people.

1. I knew you would disagree with me. But I was hoping you would answer my question regarding when people should be held accountable for their actions. I argue that people should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions if, while performing the action, they were aware of the possibility of those consequences. You do not agree with this. So I want to know when you think people should be held accountable for their actions, as well as well this interpretation is superior to mine.

2. The difference between my idea and your examples is the fact that my ideas are not preventing choice; the laws you listed prevents choice. I agree that people should have the choice to have as much unprotected sex as they want.  I stress the enforcement of accountability for the consequences of those choices (because of point 1). For example, getting drunk should not be illegal; however, getting drunk doesn’t suddenly mean people should not be held accountable for their actions.

3. Actually, I would say a vast majority of men who don’t have (unprotected) sex do so because of pregnancies – and the responsibilities it brings – and STDs. Therefore, I argue that by removing a significant deterrent of unprotected sex (responsibilities from pregnancies), then there would be an increase in that activity. Do you not agree with this?

Further, I don’t believe your drug-use example applies. But it’s not necessary to elaborate on unless you disagree with the above paragraph.

Note that in this point, I am not arguing why responsibility should be enforced (I do that in point 1). This section of my post is simply an argument against your assertion that “unlimited consensual sex without legal consequences” is a “principle worth building our society on.” Again, this does not serve as support for my argument of responsibility, but is simply a refutation to the end of your previous post.

4. The rest of your post seems to hinge upon a misinterpretation of my point. You are stating that people should have social freedoms and choice, but this is something I never argued against. People should be able to have as much as unprotected sex as they want. I don’t have a problem with that. However, those same people should have to accept responsibility for their choice to have unprotected sex. This is not about punishing them or even preventing unprotected sex. It’s about enforcing accountability when the parties involved where aware of the implications of their actions, as noted in point 1.

IMO, which is only an opinion.

Abortion cant be ruled by a hard and fast rule that covers everyone, each case should be based on the individual circumstances.

Though I dont like the idea of aborting a life, there are circumstances in a certain persons situation where such an action may be the best outcome for everyone.

Not to sound harsh here but If the woman wants the kid (in case it was an "accident") and the man does NOT but the woman says  "Ill get it anyway" then she should take care of the kid by herself (financially etc) and the man should not be forced to do so.

A man should also not be allowed to "demand" the kid if the woman does not want it.

So when this happens then I agree the woman alone should decide. When whe was raped then she obviously has the right to decide and noone should tell her what to do.


You know you can always cancel the "preorder". 

Your missing the point. Why is your morality more true than mine if its subjective. Your reasoning is that you prefer if we didn't kill by how it socially benefits society and what I am saying is the opposite. So, tell me why it simply isn't neutral opinion. I believe mothers have the right to kill there children 1-5 years old. They are the ones who gave life not the government. I think we can both agree that only difference between our opinions is personal feelings/reasoning. Kinda like is blue a better color than red. There really isn't any difference.