Not a path to promiscuity, but to sanity

Times OnLine ^ | October 30, 2005 | Minette Marrin

[Aquinasfan]

Did you bump your head before you wrote that? Are you drunk?

Hmmm... powerful argument.

Why is it "immoral" to bring an "unplanned" baby into the world?

[Skooz]

This article presupposes that modern contraception has eliminated all unwanted pregnancies, as well as all negative effects of promiscuous sex.

That's all we need to know about what utter BS it is.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Why is it "immoral" to bring an "unplanned" baby into the world?

Didn't say that did I?

So answer my question...are you drunk or did you just bump your head?

[Skooz]

Or the Humongous?

[Constantine XIII]

How many happy hippies do YOU know? I can't think of any, and I live on a college campus, so I'm generally up to my eyeballs in hippies.

[Constantine XIII]

You really oughtn't use FR as a spousal messaging tool. :D

[Aquinasfan]

Taking the chance of bringing an unplanned child in the world, no matter how low the risk, is still immoral

Do you mean to say that taking the risk of bringing an unplanned child into the world is immoral? If so, then bringing an "unplanned" child into the world must be a great evil.

[aruanan]

Traditional sexuality morality — meaning sexual restraint, particularly for women — was based on that connection between sex and conception: it evolved to protect paternity and patrimony.

What a steaming load.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Do you mean to say that taking the risk of bringing an unplanned child into the world is immoral?

I'm terribly sorry...I assumed you were literate enough to have read the article. The CONTEXT of the article was about having sex outside of wedlock.

[Aquinasfan]

I'm terribly sorry...I assumed you were literate enough to have read the article. The CONTEXT of the article was about having sex outside of wedlock.

I'm sorry. I thought you meant what you said:

There is no "contraception" that doesn't have a failure risk. Taking the chance of bringing an unplanned child in the world, no matter how low the risk, is still immoral no matter what the liberals spew.

[Constantine XIII]

What? No mustard? :)

[Constantine XIII]

One of the bonuses of going to a big church, eh? :)

[Clint N. Suhks]

I'm sorry. I thought you meant what you said:

I said it's immoral to risk/chance bringing an unplanned child into the world outside of wedlock given the "context" of the article.

NOT that unplanned babies should be "killed" as you originally inferred.

Sober up.

[steve-b]

I think that most people should get married in their late teens or early twenties, get the child bearing out of the way, and only then worry about long-term career goals.

How outrageously irresponsible. (Or do you want the taxpayers to pay the bills when the idiots who failed to make proper plans find themselves unable to do so?)

[Aquinasfan]

I said it's immoral to risk/chance bringing an unplanned child into the world outside of wedlock given the "context" of the article.

That part wasn't in your original post.

[steve-b]

Why is it "immoral" to bring an "unplanned" baby into the world?

For the same reason it is immoral to plan to successfully manage any other obligation one has assumed.

[Aquinasfan]

For the same reason it is immoral to plan to successfully manage any other obligation one has assumed.

So what should we do with the ones that escaped artificial sterilization?

[Clint N. Suhks]

That part wasn't in your original post.

If you had read the article you would have understood the "context" of my post. Saying I wanted "unplanned babies to be 'killed' is reprehensible.

[steve-b]

The question of how to deal with the ramifications of an immoral act has no bearing on whether or not the act was, in fact, immoral in the first place.

To take another example of the same principle, if a fast-talking incompetent manages to slip through the employment screening process (instead of doing the moral thing, which is to actually learn the skills expected of an entry-level employee in the field), there are various possible ways of addressing the problem after the fact. None of them changes the fact that the guy is a weasel.

[absolootezer0]

personally, i'm more of the opinion that monogamy saves the father and taxpayers from raising a child they don't know.