Is it wrong to sleep with someone you won't want to have a kid with?

It's wrong to have sex. PERIOD.

People who have sex go to Hell.

Unless maybe you pray to our Lord and beg for forgiveness. Even if you are married and having sex with your spouse.

My parents had sex and made me. They are in Hell for it.

Attachments

 

That's how Christianity used to be very early on. You were supposed to be celibate and marriage was considered failure. Frankly, the only good thing about it was that the children you had might be a better Christian than you and your partner were.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Any definition of "wrong" that didn't include reckless behavior would be pretty bizarre.

But your actions can be reckless without being wrong. If I play around with a gun and it goes off, I'd have been reckless, regardless of the result of the shot, but not wrong.

Morals are an assigned belief. You can promote the idea that it's wrong to recklessly play with a gun. You can promote the idea that it's wrong to have sex with someone you won't want to have a kid with. Depends on your own personal belief. If a man and a woman have reckless sex and she gets pregnant, that might be "wrong" to someone, but at the same time, they were just doing what nature intended for them to do -- they are biologically programmed to reproduce. They are biologically programmed to get together and get it on. Nature has successfully done its job if this occurs, no matter how these people feel about it mentally/psychologically/philosophically.

As Honeykid said, early Christians used to not believe in having sex at all.

But obviously, they still did it, anyway. Their bodies took over and overruled the propaganda that was in their minds. Nature wins.

You're forgetting the pull out method.

Or the abortion method.

That would definitely be wrong!

I don't even see the counterargument here; does it have something to do with awareness? IE: you're assuming recklessness cannot be wrong if the person is being reckless out of ignorance, rather than indifference?

My belief (being male) is I shouldn't vocalize my opinion for something I will never have to deal with.

I think the choice is simple, the people involved are the ones that will have the rest of their lives affected by it.

With that out of the way...



I would love for the crick to make a "lifestories" thread, seriously... statute of limitations and all. ...even if he is a pats fan... ... and they stole a Superbowl from us (jokes and jokes and jokes and jokes )... ... ... and hopefully we can meet them in the Superbowl and repay them.

Being an 80's baby, I was indoctrinated with 2 things...

1. Do drugs and you will D.I.E. .
2. Have unprotected sex and you will D.I.E. .

"Knock on Wood". Being young and impressionable and having the fear of Death by my peen worked. As far as I know... Like when people ask if you have any kids, "None that I know of. "

Goodnight folks! Man are my arms tired.

Recklessness is stupid and unsafe, but not wrong. I don't see it as a right or wrong thing. Why would it be wrong? Unless you mean if it's not wrong then it has to be right. Is that the case? Because that's not what I mean. I just mean it's not wrong.

Hahaha. Thread title.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Why would putting people in danger be wrong? That seems like it should be self-evident, but if you want it in syllogism form, okay:

1. It's bad when people get hurt.
2. Putting people in danger means they might get hurt.
3. Therefore, recklessly putting people in danger is bad.

I didn't say there was anyone else there. Even alone it's reckless and stupid but I don't think it's wrong.

There are probably way more people out there who have sex with others they will never have kids with.

I don't think it's really possible, by definition, to do something reckless that isn't also wrong. But we've gotten pretty far afield: regardless of whether or not we can construct a hypothetical where this distinction is possible, the issue is whether or not consent should be the only determining factor as to whether or not a sexual act is right or wrong. That flips the burden of proof: it means not that you can construct a scenario where it isn't reckless, but rather, that you can't construct a scenario where it ever is. Which doesn't really seem like a serious position.

I think trying to reduce this question to one of consent is, like so many other responses in this thread, answering a different question than was asked. People are ostensibly answering "is this wrong?" but the responses are actually applicable to questions like "do I like the idea of being told I shouldn't do this?" or "is it fair if people criticize me for doing it?" or "should I be allowed to do it?"

My positions in a quick way:

1. Sex for it's own sake isn't necessarily wrong. Also, while we're on it, it can be wrong to have sex FOR the sake of procreation (e.g. you want to have a baby so that you can torture it). I think it's pretty clearly circumstantial.

2. I agree with Yoda that recklessness is damn near directly tied to wrongfulness, but I also think think that every action has an element of recklessness attached to it. Reckless as a descriptor only makes sense if it crosses some threshold of reckless (otherwise the term has little meaning). Recklessly having sex is probably wrong, but not all sex for it's own sake is reckless sex.

3. I think the idea of "It's wrong to do anything if you're not going to take responsibility for any associated risks" is fairly true, but you and I may have very different ideas about what "taking responsibility" means.

4. If a hedonist is selfishly pursuing pleasure maximization they should take mild proactive steps to avoid stds and pregnancy for the hedonist's sake.

I don't think the simple act of having sex for pleasure is "wrong". In fact, if both parties consent and are taking the necessary steps to keep themselves protected, then they're also probably smart enough to understand the risks involved in having sex. In that case, I would hardly consider this "wrong".


Now, if you have someone who just wantonly goes around hooking up with people without any regard for protection, testing, etc. then, I could definitely see a case for that being considered "wrong". It certainly isn't smart or responsible.

__________________
BLIP

nope, I'm not offended at all. Prob more sad to read stuff like this in this day and age. I thought we'd got past rediculous ideas like you have using the kind of language you do.

As for your 'satirical style', I see no evidence of that. I always thought satire involved a clever use of wit

If this is the case then I don't see that there's a definite answer because it'd be the consequences of that action and the reactions to them (if any appear/occur) which would lead to an answer.

I don't think it's wrong, but it's not right either as it's a neutral act.