(May 31, 2015 at 4:22 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(May 31, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: It does not have the same potential and often actual consequences, so why would the moral consequences be the same? Do you think there are no moral consequences if you get a woman pregnant and she has a child? Should that have different moral consequences for you than going to a movie?
If you go to a movie with a woman, you are not morally obligated to pay child support because of it. Are you saying that if you father a child, you are also not morally obligated to pay child support because of it?
If you wish to continue conflating the moral consequences of pregnancy and/or child rearing and/or illnesses, with that of the act of sex, be my guest. I'll stick to the act itself, the only argument I made. See, I consider pregnancy, child rearing and illnesses to be separate issues dealt with on their own, not conflated with the sex act. When you add in today's contraceptive and advances in medical sciences, the real physical consequences are vastly reduced. You don't see it that way and that's fine. If you wish to keep attacking the straw man, that's also fine, but I'm out.
Whether you like to admit it or not, sex comes with risks. Only a total moron does not realize that. Any action with risks is in a different moral category than actions without risks. That you are unable to see this does not justify your repeated false accusations of fallacy.
Sexual intercourse is the same action whether a child is produced or not. And it is the same action whether a disease is transferred or not. Two men may do exactly the same actions, yet one may become a father, and the other not. Sure, the one does not have to pay child support (or participate in raising the child), and so the outcome for one is different than for the other. But pretending that all of this is completely separate from sex is moronic. The two men just had sex; neither of them acted any differently for the different outcomes. If you have sex, you should be prepared for all possible outcomes.
And it is fine if you are really "out" of the conversation, as you have not stated anything worth reading. So it is doubtful if you will add anything of value to the discussion in the future, regardless of whether you post again or not.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
