Is unmarried sex always harmfull?

RStringfield said:
I don't think there is any way to confirm the risks levels. Even if there are studies available, they would necessarily rely on interview data. But, I would bet money that you are wrong on this point. Condoms are 98% effective against pregnancy and there are still several choices required to get to either of the negatives you mention.
Click to expand...
Again, silliness. You don't need a study to know that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be without a father, although there are many studies on how that has increased. And a 2% risk of creating a child that will either be thrown into the trash or start off life with a handicap that others do not have is only acceptable to you because you really want to have that orgasm.


No, my argument is that a single family home or abortion are very possible for the child/fetus conceived in marriage. As far as I am concerned, an unplanned pregnancy is not really good or bad.
Click to expand...
It is far less of a risk in that situation.

Greater than what? In this very post you said...



Yet you are okay with married people doing just that. The risk level is something we all decide to take or not. You are just rationalizing the same risks accepted by married couples.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I was okay with it. I said that even in those situations it is best to only take that pleasure when you are willing to take on the responsibility that may arise. In other words, if you are unwilling to raise an unexpected progeny together, you should not be risking the creation of that progeny.
 
Damocles said:
Again, silliness. You don't need a study to know that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be without a father, although there are many studies on how that has increased. And a 2% risk of creating a child that will either be thrown into the trash or start off life with a handicap that others do not have is only acceptable to you because you really want to have that orgasm.
Click to expand...

The risk is not 2% that the child will be aborted or grow up in a single family home. The risk of pregnancy is 2%. The risk of abortion or single family home has to be quite a bit less than 2%, since the couple could get married/commit or the mother could marry/commit to another.

I didn't say I was okay with it. I said that even in those situations it is best to only take that pleasure when you are willing to take on the responsibility that may arise. In other words, if you are unwilling to raise an unexpected progeny together, you should not be risking the creation of that progeny.
Click to expand...

Willingness to raise the child does not remove the risk. Also, you don't have to be married to be willing to raise the child.

Honestly, there is virtually no risk at all, married or unmarried, since for either of the things to happen there has to be other choices made. The only thing beyond the power of the parents to control is the death of parent(s) leaving the child in a single family home or worse.

That's the point I am making, that the choices made that directly cause those things to happen is what you should be condemning. Of course, one would then be obligated to take precautions against being faced with that choice, unless they were willing to make the right one. But marriage has little to do with it. Many married couples plan not to have children at all.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
The risk is not 2% that the child will be aborted or grow up in a single family home. The risk of pregnancy is 2%. The risk of abortion or single family home has to be quite a bit less than 2%, since the couple could get married/commit or the mother could marry/commit to another.



Willingness to raise the child does not remove the risk. Also, you don't have to be married to be willing to raise the child.

Honestly, there is virtually no risk at all, married or unmarried, since for either of the things to happen there has to be other choices made. The only thing beyond the power of the parents to control is the death of parent(s) leaving the child in a single family home or worse.

That's the point I am making, that the choices made that directly cause those things to happen is what you should be condemning. Of course, one would then be obligated to take precautions against being faced with that choice, unless they were willing to make the right one. But marriage has little to do with it. Many married couples plan not to have children at all.
Click to expand...
Again, the reality is that the risk is far higher to the progeny to be raised in a single parent family when it is created into that situation. Pretending that it isn't is just silly justification for what you want to do over what is reality. The risk taken is much higher for those circumstances than it is when you are willingly taking on that risk with a committed partner.

And willingness for a couple to raise the child together if it happens to be unexpectedly created does lower the risk that the child will be raised that way. Even children of divorce with two parents are at an advantage to those raised by a single parent.

And IMO if you plan to have no children and are unwilling to take on that responsibility if what you are risking happens then you shouldn't be having sex even in that marriage. You seem to pass over that I have repeatedly stated this in one form or another.

(BTW - I would never suggest making it a law, I am simply putting forward my considered opinion on the personal responsibility of every individual.)
 
Damocles said:
Again, risk to benefit analysis. Children need interaction with children their age in order to learn to be successful in the future. Silly examples notwithstanding, once the parent has chosen to raise the child, it is part of their responsibility to teach the child such analysis. Most parents in the US use a set of rules given them by their parents that already considered such things, or didn't but is used to make those determinations. This is where most people learn religion.

Once the decision to raise a child is made, creating the best environment for success is the most moral action. The highest percentage of success is from a two-parent environment, the child learns important social lessons from each parent.

Creating children randomly and on accident is not the most moral of activities as it places an entire lifetime at risk solely for a moment's pleasure.

Again, to answer the original question (repeating myself here), it is not always "harmful" to participate in casual sex, however it is always possibly very harmful and such a risk forced upon an innocent is wrong.
Click to expand...

Let it go, Damo.
That's the way it's always been with Liberals.
It's eaither ALL or NOTHING.
They don't have the ability to see a middle ground.
It's been bred out of them.
 
Apperantly its only okay if she has had a hystractomy.... or is otherwise infertle or you just do it in the ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top