What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[McBell]

I'm claiming you imagine a threat because you are afraid. You claim you're not so the other person speaks to you as though you didn't believe, but it turns out you're not sure and you blame them for not taking your doubts into consideration when you claimed you don't have any doubts.

I did not imagine a threat.
I was threatened.

To bad for the one threatening that I find it a bold empty threat.

That you are so afraid of the threat is most entertaining.
Please keep going with your less than armchair quarter back psychology.

We are learning much about you.

 

[ppp]

Sometimes schizophrenics believe their voices....

If you are going to try to make a witty rejoinder don't use people with mental disorders as though they are mere objects for your fun. And no, that sort of crass self-involvement is not a feature of your religion. That is on you.

 

[Piculet]

If you are going to try to make a witty rejoinder don't use people with mental disorders as though they are mere objects for your fun. And no, that sort of crass self-involvement is not a feature of your religion. That is on you.

I wasn't being witty. I was pointing out for like the thousandth time that just because you think you're threatened doesn't mean you're threatened. I'm not sure at this point that you were serious though. Maybe you're just stirring things up as is typical of you. And no — just because you try to invent faults about me, doesn't make your previous claims disappear or look better. Now, go on making condescending comments. You know you want to. You can't resist it.

 

[ppp]

I wasn't being witty.

I agree. If you want to disparage me, fine. Just don't use a class of people to do so.

I was pointing out for like the thousandth time that just because you think you're threatened doesn't mean you're threatened.

A threat is a statement of an intention to bring about an unpleasant eventuality delivered for the purpose of goading action under the duress of fear. 'Believe or you'll suffer unimaginable torments' fits that bill.

I'm not sure at this point that you were serious though. Maybe you're just stirring things up as is typical of you.

If by "stirring up" you mean speaking out against beliefs that are various degrees of detrimental to society -- I very seriously hope that is typical.

And no — just because you try to invent faults about me, doesn't make your previous claims disappear or look better.

That was vague. If you are going to accuse me of something, don't be shy about it. If you're not, don't waste time on pointless circumlocution.

Now, go on making condescending comments. You know you want to. You can't resist it.

You mispelled Piculet.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hm. Do you think two people can have sex in genuine love without marriage? (Assuming right and wrong and marriage excluded)

Remember, you quoted my post in which I was responding to the OP.
Do you think he was referring to “genuine love”?

But, anyway, you ask a good question.
My response is, if it is “genuine love,” then why not commit yourself to that person?

 

[ppp]

My response is, if it is “genuine love,” then why not commit yourself to that person?

Commitment does not require marriage. Or monogamy.

 

[thomas t]

Continue.

ok Joe, see below...

And I suspect that thi sis the original reason casual sex was declared to be immoral: before birth control, it was *way* too easy to produce another human being.

interesting.

Fortunately, for responsible people today, the odds of that are much less.

Also, I don't consider an embryo to be morally equivalent to a person, who is born, by definition.

this is your personal guess, noone should rule out that unborn lives are human lives. There is no reason to do so, as I see it.
So, if you can't rule out that unborn lives are human lives, the risk of running into a scenario in which abortion suddenly besomes an option should be zero.
It cannot be compared to traffic deaths... because everyone stepping into a car accepts the risk of potentially getting killed in an accident.
This is what would like to add to the discussion I had with @blü 2 yesterday.

I see it that way:
If you engage in a sexual relationship with someone you should make sure that at the end of the day... you shouldn't contribute to a rise of the expected number of abortions in your country.

 

[ppp]

ok Joe, see below...

Ok

this is your personal guess, noone should rule out that unborn lives are human lives.

I very specifically didn't rule that out. I said, I agree that sperm is alive, and that an egg is alive, and that an embryo is a living organism different from either parent.

So, if you can't rule out that unborn lives are human lives, the risk of running into a scenario in which abortion suddenly besomes an option should be zero.

I don't see how that follows. Please explain.

It cannot be compared to traffic deaths... because everyone stepping into a car accepts the risk of potentially getting killed in an accident.

That is false. Unborn children do not consent. Babies do not consent. Arguably no one up till mid-adolescence has the capacity to consent to the risks of getting into car.

I see it that way:
If you engage in a sexual relationship with someone you should make sure that at the end of the day... you shouldn't contribute to a rise of the expected number of abortions in your country.

I can see that as a personal goal. But I don't see that an ought has been established there. If a woman does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term I do not see any justification to obligate her to do so.

 

[blü 2]

ok Joe, see below...

interesting.

this is your personal guess, noone should rule out that unborn lives are human lives. There is no reason to do so, as I see it.
So, if you can't rule out that unborn lives are human lives, the risk of running into a scenario in which abortion suddenly besomes an option should be zero.
It cannot be compared to traffic deaths... because everyone stepping into a car accepts the risk of potentially getting killed in an accident.
This is what would like to add to the discussion I had with @blü 2 yesterday.

I see it that way:
If you engage in a sexual relationship with someone you should make sure that at the end of the day... you shouldn't contribute to a rise of the expected number of abortions in your country.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

As you know I'm pro-choice.

 

[thomas t]

I don't see how that follows. Please explain.

you don't want to risk human deaths, especially if the unborn life didn't authorize anybody to kill.

I can see that as a personal goal. But I don't see that an ought has been established there. If a woman does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term I do not see any justification to obligate her to do so.

no I don't want to force anybody into anything either.
You asked why it is immoral to have sex when abortions cannot be ruled out right from the start.
I'm pretty much pro-choice, too. Just like @blü 2. But I'm also pro life. I'm both and.
I say: having casual sex is immoral because of the option of abortion being present in what you do. More precisely: the expected number of abortion goes up, if everybody has casual sex. And contributing to a rise in the expected number of abortions is what makes it an immoral thing, in my opinion.

I agree: you can't force a woman into anything and you shouldn't. But this also means, the option of abortion also is in the bed. It's not just having sex. No.
It's having sex AND getting yourself into a situation in which the option of an abortion suddenly becomes relevant if the contraception method fails. That's the thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Rather than getting into a discussion on the morality of abortion (which should be a different thread), we can add one to our list of reasons casual sex might be considered to be immoral:

4. It risks an unplanned pregnancy, which potentially has moral consequences.

I would point out, though, that there is nothing about the casualness of the sex that is relevant here. ANY sex carries this risk.

A consequence of this would be a moral hazard if a monogamous married couple has sex, but does not want to have children.

 

[thomas t]

I would point out, though, that there is nothing about the casualness of the sex that is relevant here.

of course the casualness of the sex adds to the risk for a potential unwanted pregnancy to stay unwanted. Casual sex means you just wanted the sex. That's how I understand it.
But if it results in an unwanted pregnancy... it may happen that the woman does not want to have a family with this guy she slept with.
Maybe the man does not want that either...
So she is left with the question of whether or not she wants to bring up a child alone? or rather leave it for adoption?... or - sadly - have the abortion.
Abortions are not uncommon. In Germany alone it's almost a six digit number. Every year.

If an unwanted pregnancy happens within a partnership, the couple remains intact (hopefully) and I think they are more likely to have the child.

 

[ppp]

no I don't want to force anybody into anything either.
You asked why it is immoral to have sex when abortions cannot be ruled out right from the start.
I'm pretty much pro-choice, too. Just like @blü 2. But I'm also pro life. I'm both and.

Okay. I am aware that there are people who hold both views. My apologies for conflating the two.

I say: having casual sex is immoral because of the option of abortion being present in what you do. More precisely: the expected number of abortion goes up, if everybody has casual sex. And contributing to a rise in the expected number of abortions is what makes it an immoral thing, in my opinion.

you don't want to risk human deaths, especially if the unborn life didn't authorize anybody to kill.

As I, and others, pointed out before, the expected number of human deaths goes up because of the usage of cars. No non-born or minor consents to the risk of getting into a vehicle, or of playing sports, or non-essential corrective surgeries, or the myriad of other activities and inactivities that both incur risk and are not absolutely necessary to survival. . Yet it seems that you put casual sex into a special category. No?

I am not actually all that concerned about someone who considers abortion to be immoral when they also think that choice is necessary. It renders the issue largely philosophical in nature.

 

[thomas t]

As I, and others, pointed out before, the expected number of human deaths goes up because of the usage of cars.

yeah, but everyone agrees to subject themselves to that risk, more or less.
Even the ones driving a car.
The unborn life, in contrast, does not agree to be killed.
And look at the numbers:
In Germany it's almost 100.000 dead every year. Whereas in traffic accidents it's a bit more than 3.000 (Germany).

No non-born or minor consents to the risk of getting into a vehicle,

the moment they become adults, noone would ever come up with the idea of accusing their parents to have transported them in a car.

I am not actually all that concerned about someone who considers abortion to be immoral when they also think that choice is necessary.

I feel relieved.

---------
"it's getting philosophical now" you seem to be saying. To me it comes across as saying that all those who don't consider themselves philosophers ... don't need to adress these questions so much when they have casual sex, since they are not so ponderous as a person?
But maybe you didn't want to be insinuating that, at all...

 

[ppp]

yeah, but everyone agrees to subeject themselves to that risk, more or less.

No. A thousand times, no. If you think that "everyone" includes the unborn, then you cannot possibly believe that sentence. No pregnant mother gains the consent of her fetus for anything at anytime. You don't get to count the completely non-existent unborn at the point where people decide to have sex, and then totally dismiss the actually existing unborn when you address other taken by those same people. You cannot have it both ways.

And look at the numbers:
In Germany it's almost 100.000 dead every year. Whereas in traffic accidents it's a bit more than 3.000 (Germany).

Do the numbers matter? If they were flipped with 3000 abortions and 100,000 car deaths would that make casual sex moral in your eyes?

From my perspective, if Frank does something I consider to be immoral 100 times, and Rhoda does a similar act 10,000 times, I do not consider Frank to be more moral than Rhoda.

the moment they turn adult, noone would ever come up with the idea of accusing their parents to have transported them in a car.

I know. Which is why I don't buy that your objection to casual sex is only about preventing human deaths, as you seem to imply.

"it's getting philosophical now" you seem to be saying. To me it comes across as saying that all those who don't consider themselves philosophers ... don't need to adress these questions so much when they have casual sex, since they are not so ponderous as a person?
But maybe you didn't want to be insinuating that, at all...

Yeah, I can see why you might think that. Calling something a "philosophical question" can be dismissive. That wasn't my intent. I just meant that we are discussing ethics (what we think and why), not policy (how we plan to implement our conclusions.).

 

[McBell]

you don't want to risk human deaths, especially if the unborn life didn't authorize anybody to kill.
no I don't want to force anybody into anything either.
You asked why it is immoral to have sex when abortions cannot be ruled out right from the start.
I'm pretty much pro-choice, too. Just like @blü 2. But I'm also pro life. I'm both and.
I say: having casual sex is immoral because of the option of abortion being present in what you do. More precisely: the expected number of abortion goes up, if everybody has casual sex. And contributing to a rise in the expected number of abortions is what makes it an immoral thing, in my opinion.

I agree: you can't force a woman into anything and you shouldn't. But this also means, the option of abortion also is in the bed. It's not just having sex. No.
It's having sex AND getting yourself into a situation in which the option of an abortion suddenly becomes relevant if the contraception method fails. That's the thing.

Do you also apply said logic to say, driving?
I mean, acidents happe.
Some of them causing death.

My question is, do you apply your above logic to driving in the same way and thus rendering driving immoral?
Where is the line drawn?

 

[Polymath257]

of course the casualness of the sex adds to the risk for a potential unwanted pregnancy to stay unwanted. Casual sex means you just wanted the sex. That's how I understand it.
But if it results in an unwanted pregnancy... it may happen that the woman does not want to have a family with this guy she slept with.
Maybe the man does not want that either...
So she is left with the question of whether or not she wants to bring up a child alone? or rather leave it for adoption?... or - sadly - have the abortion.
Abortions are not uncommon. In Germany alone it's almost a six digit number. Every year.

If an unwanted pregnancy happens within a partnership, the couple remains intact (hopefully) and I think they are more likely to have the child.

That very much depends on the couple. I don't see it as guaranteed by any means. Many married couples want to remain childfree. Many already have as many children as they want. And, an unexpected pregnancy, even in a married couple, can bring up differences: maybe one partner wants to have another child and the other does not. In which case, the same questions arise. And, they are supplemented by the possibility of a divorce if there is no way to reconcile the differences, potentially with someone having to pay child support for an unwanted child (especially if the previous agreement was to not have children).

Now, it is more common for married couples to be OK with having children. But it is far from being an absolute thing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Commitment does not require marriage. Or monogamy.

Oh yeah? Then what does commitment require?

And BTW, don’t even think about messin around with my daughter!

 

[ppp]

Oh yeah? Then what does commitment require?

The ability and desire to make an agreement and to conform one's own actions to that decision.

And BTW, don’t even think about messin around with my daughter!

There are not enough eye-rolls.

 

[thomas t]

No. A thousand times, no. If you think that "everyone" includes the unborn, then you cannot possibly believe that sentence. No pregnant mother gains the consent of her fetus for anything at anytime. You don't get to count the completely non-existent unborn at the point where people decide to have sex, and then totally dismiss the actually existing unborn when you address other taken by those same people. You cannot have it both ways.

I was simplyfying.
As I said, no grown up child would ever accuse their parents of having transported them in a car. That's the point here.
As a comparison, aborted babies never say "it's ok" afterwards.
(@Mestemia this is where I see the difference between driving and this topic here)

Do the numbers matter? If they were flipped with 3000 abortions and 100,000 car deaths would that make casual sex moral in your eyes?

numbers show how frequent abortions really are. If there were like two or three abortions every year, then the way casual sex is handled wouldn't seem at odds with protecting the unborn life, ob viously.
But if it's 100.000... then casual sex also has a fair amount of abortions as a consequence, I guess.

Which is why I don't buy that your objection to casual sex is only about preventing human deaths, as you seem to imply.

Buy it, please. I'm honest.

I just meant that we are discussing ethics (what we think and why), not policy (how we plan to implement our conclusions.).

ok, here we agree.