|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
An Issue of Responsibility | by Illiad | 2003-11-06 08:30:47 |
|
Work shift over, gotta head home - | by Ravenlock | 2003-11-06 11:04:12 |
| Okay - to LM, Nola, et al - |
by Ravenlock |
2003-11-06 11:50:01 |
Brief return just to get out the following - I suppose I have to go a little further down the rabbit hole in order to properly express where I'm coming from. ;)
First off, I'm not an anti-abortion zealot. I've argued for its need to remain legal on this board before, as there are times when it is justified, and other times when it is necessary.
However, it seems to me the specific issue in question is more about the ethics of sex. Ethics, of course, are a funny thing, in that they are at once highly personal and universal. That is to say, I have to believe my ethics are "right", or they would not be my ethics. At the same time, I have to accept that others may not agree with them or abide by them.
LM was precisely correct in saying that obviously, a man cannot carry a child to term - only the woman can do that, and it is inflicted on her body. However, the situation we were discussing was specific - two consenting adults who know what they're doing - so I was speaking to that specific situation.
In that situation, from my point of view, both parties are making a choice that will have consequences they ethically have to abide by if things don't go their way. I don't think it's ethically possible to say "we're going to have sex and we're not going to have kids" - the only way you should be having sex is if the understanding is "and we don't want kids, but we'll deal with it responsibly if it happens."
This means both parties need to accept different things beforehand. It'd be nice if these things could be "equal", but biology doesn't work that way. The man needs to accept that if the woman becomes pregnant, he's going to have a partner carrying a child. He'll have to share responsibility for the things that are harder for her to do while she's carrying, he'll have to help her through her pregnancy, and once that child is born, there will be a child that needs to be dealt with. The woman needs to accept that if pregnancy occurs - medical situation, etc, permitting - she's going to have an on-board passenger for nine months.
If both parties can't deal with that, as far as I'm concerned, they should not be having sex. Sex is not a necessity, it is a commodity. If you can't deal with the repercussions, don't indulge.
Incidentally, this is not a view I would ever try to "force" on a woman. My better half and I have discussed it, agree on it, and because of it, have agreed not to indulge until we'd be ready to deal with the possible consequences. As someone else mentioned in this thread, there are plenty of non-child-creating ways to have fun between the sheets, folks.
I think that about sums it up for me. Again, sex is not a necessity. The intelligent decisions need to be discussed and made before the horizontal dancing ever takes place - afterwards all you can do is deal with the lesser of a number of evils. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
