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

BURN!!!

But really, the main problem with you, 90, is that you never really know how to deliver your discussions. Sometimes I see where you are going, but mostly you lose me beforehand or further down the line. In the middle somewhere, I may see a point, but usually I'm gone before I get there...

The dispute isn't about whether or not the act is inherently right or wrong, it's about whether or not consent is the only relevant factor in determining its morality. So if you think it's even possible that there are negative consequences and reactions that could make the action wrong (and it sounds like you do), then you already agree in principle.

But wouldn't that make most thing morally wrong? I could drive within the legal speed limit but still hit someone and kill them. That doesn't mean it's morally wrong to drive, does it?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I think a better analogy would be whether or not it's morally wrong to drive while intoxicated, even if you don't get into an accident. And I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Reckless behavior doesn't need to manifest itself tangibly to be wrong: it's wrong the moment you create a danger you can't control.

But that's neither here nor there, because as I said in the last post:

You seem to be arguing that it's not necessarily wrong, but as far as I can tell nobody has suggested otherwise. It has been suggested that it's automatically not wrong if the act is consensual, though, and that's what I was disagreeing with.

Why have sex when I can play videogames

Is it wrong to play video games you don't intend to finish?

So are you saying that it's is wrong depending on what else happens afterwards/the result? Or are you saying that the possibility of pregnancy, regardless of whether or not precautions are taken, is enough to make the act immoral if you don't intend to or wouldn't want to have children with that person?

I haven't been saying either of those things: I've been saying that consent isn't the only thing we need to know to determine if it's right or wrong.

I'm not sure how to put it any plainer than that. Whatever you're arguing with is, I think, some kind of assumption or extrapolation.

Hells no. It's fun!

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I agree with that. My question was that that isn't the same as wrong, which then lead on to the whole reckless thing.

[/quote]I'm not sure how to put it any plainer than that. Whatever you're arguing with is, I think, some kind of assumption or extrapolation.[/quote]
Yep. we seem to be at cross purposes here. So, to answer the question, is it wrong?

Cool.

Depends on how literally you take the question. If it literally means not wanting a kid, that would technically encompass even married couples not using birth control who just hope they don't get pregnant right now, which even your staunchest Catholic would have little objection to. I'm married, and don't want kids right now, but I understand and accept that still I have responsibilities if it happens.

*Gasp* Yoda! Have some decency!

But that was the question. I mean, it's a stupid question as it doesn't take into account anything else, but that's the question. Hence me answer of "no".

I never intend to finish them. But then, I'm old and when I started playing them there was no finish.

It's the question if we decide to take it as completely literal, but given the follow-up posts and the fact that virtually nobody would answer "no" under that interpretation, I doubt that's the question as it was intended.

Sometimes I buy a game and play it for awhile, and I don't even remember its title.

What's the point of answering a question in a way you think it might've been intended? I think it's a stupid question. If it's a badly written question which is asking a more complex question, that's fine. But you can't answer (and/or argue) a question you've interpreted and expect to have any meaning discussion about it (and by "it" I mean both the question which was asked and the question you decided to answer) because you need to establish just what it is you're arguing as well as what you're arguing against (as you're saying that other people are also interpreting the question)

Is it wrong to drink if you don't intend to get drunk?

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Because discussion is more useful and productive when all involved make a good faith effort to understand what the other person is trying to say.

In this case, I don't see how there's any doubt: his second and third posts in the thread make his meaning pretty plain, both of which were posted long before you or I replied.

Nope. Sex is normal. Howerver, whatever you take is also being taken from you. Don't forget that.