I think it's fair - to an extent - to expect people to be responsible when having sex.candydog wrote:Well I have a few opinions on this.
First of all I believe that in a perfect world, no one would be having sex unless they were prepared to live with the consequences. Why? Well when you consent to having sex, you know that you are about to be a part in what is first and foremost a REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. No matter what form of contraception you use, it is not 100% safe. Therefore if you have sex you know that you are taking a risk, and I believe that if you take that risk you should be FULLY prepared to live with the consequences.
However, I have to admit I can be kind of a hypocrite. If I was a 16 year-old girl and I found myself pregnant I would probably want to have an abortion.
And what about the rights of the father? Where does he factor into this? If the woman doesn't want the child and the father does, shouldn't he be able to raise the child himself? I know that means that the mother will have to go through the pregnancy, but as I stated earlier, that's just one of the consequences you have to live with.
Also, I have to admit that I do value a fetus as a life to some extent. Remember, we were all fetuses once, who developed into the people we are today. You may not believe that you're killing a human being, but you are killing something which is growing into one.
But that being said, for my 2 cents, I don't think people are properly educated on sex. And therefore, I also don't buy people who would say "that's too bad" to the people having ignorant sex. I'd say it's too bad for the people who are withholding information because of religion or general prudeness. The society we live in not only demonizes far too much of sex and sexuality, but they also mock it and try to make everything about it silly and embarrassing.
Of course, Candydog, I have 1 problem with your post in particular. You just, if I'm not mistaken, kinda said if the father wants to have the baby, this is a consequence of the mother's. So, she has to deal with having to have the baby when she doesn't want to... but the father doesn't have to deal with wanting it and not being able to have it? That's grossly uneven and unfair. And this is still keeping in mind the Consequence theory.
I think, in a perfect world, the mother and father could agree on whether to have it or not and the reason why. But, regardless of the pregnancy's details, the needs and wants of the woman should likely come before the man's. Just remember we are talking about a serious, grueling, and life-changing pregnancy. Which is not to be confused with a moral lesson. I mean, when you put it that way- you're theoretically neglecting the child. Where does he or she factor in? As a moral consequence?? They must exist to prove a point? Harsh.