The Student Room Group

I can't feel morally right about contraception

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Howard
Well, I'm sure you won't feel the same way if you suffer a heart attack and need CPD.


I've had this argument with someone earlier. OK, I should have specified, but I believe there to be a distinction when one is life preserving and one life denying. I don't support the death penalty either .And I was making the point that we are all somewhere on the scale where we think it is wrong to 'intervene' with the process in it's entirety, of reproduction- my point is it's a continuum, there is no discrete point of objection, it's all on a scale, until you are not penetrating the woman, because that is the point where reproduction does not occur, but it's no longer because of intervention. For some people it may be 30 weeks into a pregnancy where they have a moral problem, for some it may be hours after unprotected intercourse, for me it's actual penetration with a condom, which although may not be as a grave, still makes me uneasy despite consensus wisdom. I have even been really disturbed by someone using the morning after pill.


I'm aware about generalized points about intervening in nature, but surely we have to accept that context is relevant in just about all arguments.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SophieSmall
Yes some women do that, no doubt that. But OP is claiming he is being FORCED to wait, he isn't. He has options to date women who want children now. But he wants it all his way and now, well life doesn't work like that.


Actually middle class guys of middle class parents who go through university, meet those women, live in a very feminist world, are being forced to wait, (because none of those women are even willing to risk it until way later, and many until when their bodies make it unlikely..)when women their age are fertile. Working class people are still having them(supposedly rashly and impulsively) when biology supports it and says 'green light'. Even many doctors have advised as much.
Many of the women who won't even look at so many guys and do it get gutted later because they realise they want them. Like much of the wisdom of our era from ultra-feminists and the middle(chattering) classes it seems to be pseudo-sophistication that history will prove to be idiocy.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
I've had this argument with someone earlier. OK, I should have specified, but I believe there to be a distinction when one is life preserving and one life denying. I don't support the death penalty either.


Your argument is flawed. You can't say you're against anything that goes against nature and then retract that statement and decide to disagree with the stuff that doesn't concern you.

btw, contraceptives are not only to prevent pregnancy. Some girls are prescribed the pill for severe period pain and to regulate periods.
Original post by cherryred90s
Your argument is flawed. You can't say you're against anything that goes against nature and then retract that statement and decide to disagree with the stuff that doesn't concern you.

btw, contraceptives are not only to prevent pregnancy. Some girls are prescribed the pill for severe period pain and to regulate periods.


For the millionth time, I never made the statement that anything that went against nature was wrong, context is relevant here, I didn't expect such total literal mindedness, and and I never said it was the sole reason for my problem with it.

And I did explain, that although I forgot to point it out initially, that it is an important moral distinction to make for me, when some intervening with nature it to preserve life and some is to deny it. You can't factor that out or say it's irrelevant just because I didn't state it literally from moment one, and I did say the other thing. Doesn't mean I don't hold that view. And doesn't mean it's not hugely morally significant and can be airbrushed out of the debate.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SophieSmall
I don't really care what you call it, I'm living my life for me and the people I love. I'm not about to have a child just because some bloke said anyone who doesn't failed at life. I'd be miserable as a mother so why the **** would I be one?


If you want to have sex then deep down you want to have children, thats the whole reason sexual attraction exists.Also, you were only brought into this world because your parents brought you into this world so you are being unfair on your potential children from not having children- if your parents hadn't chosen to have children you wouldn't be alive do you want to be alive? if so then it is immoral not to want to have children.
Original post by Dalek1099
If you want to have sex then deep down you want to have children, thats the whole reason sexual attraction exists.Also, you were only brought into this world because your parents brought you into this world so you are being unfair on your potential children from not having children- if your parents hadn't chosen to have children you wouldn't be alive do you want to be alive? if so then it is immoral not to want to have children.


No. That is ridiculous. And you cannot be unfair to something that doesn't exist. By that logic you should go and have sex with as many women as possible, otherwise you're being unfair on your potential children because you're not letting them exist.

If my mum decided not to have me I wouldn't know because I wouldn't be alive, so I don't care about that and whether I want to be alive now has no baring on that. And I don't at all see it as a reason to have children morally.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SophieSmall
No. That is ridiculous

.


Of course the simplicity of his argument will be dismissed as idiocy, but it has a certain irrefutable logic. Sometimes simplicity is true, and complexity is pseudo-sophistication. We are driven as a species to make our genes survive. You experience sexual pleasure and desire, in proportion to how attractive you find someone, because you are, at the least subconsciously, motivated to pass your genes on and find the best father(or mother) for this job, hence the best gene combination and parenting that will ensure the survival of your offspring.
Original post by SophieSmall
No. That is ridiculous. And you cannot be unfair to something that doesn't exist. By that logic you should go and have sex with as many women as possible, otherwise you're being unfair on your potential children because you're not letting them exist.

If my mum decided not to have me I wouldn't know because I wouldn't be alive, so I don't care about that and whether I want to be alive now has no baring on that. And I don't at all see it as a reason to have children morally.


I haven't found any women to have sex with but having children is different to not having children because then at least I would brought some life into the world like my parents brought me into the world.You say you are living life for yourself and those who you love, would it not be likely that you would love your potential children and love them by bringing them into the world?(they are your future family after all).

If you want to be alive now but you won't let your children be able to be alive then that is immoral.
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Of course the simplicity of his argument will be dismissed as idiocy, but it has a certain irrefutable logic. Sometimes simplicity is true, and complexity is pseudo-sophistication. We are driven as a species to make our genes survive. You experience sexual pleasure and desire, in proportion to how attractive you find someone, because you are, at the least subconsciously, motivated to pass your genes on and find the best father(or mother) for this job, hence the best gene combination and parenting that will ensure the survival of your offspring.


That does not mean every single person ever wants children. Many people die happy having not had children. Are they going against the norm? Yes. But so what,
Original post by Dalek1099
If you want to have sex then deep down you want to have children, that's the whole reason sexual attraction exists.


The desire for sex is hardwired into us. That does not have to translate as a desire for children however.
Original post by SophieSmall
That does not mean every single person ever wants children. Many people die happy having not had children. Are they going against the norm? Yes. But so what,


Happiness is ambiguous, but in a sense I wouldn't disagree with you there. However they have denied something very primal and instinctive in humans, they have decided to follow the rational mind and rationalizations, not sure how much this follows the deep subconscious truth of what they want, and I'm not sure it isn't a neurotic response.
Original post by SophieSmall
No. That is ridiculous. And you cannot be unfair to something that doesn't exist. By that logic you should go and have sex with as many women as possible, otherwise you're being unfair on your potential children because you're not letting them exist.

If my mum decided not to have me I wouldn't know because I wouldn't be alive, so I don't care about that and whether I want to be alive now has no baring on that. And I don't at all see it as a reason to have children morally.


Why did you reply to him?? Look at his rep bar for Christ's sake lmao
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The desire for sex is hardwired into us. That does not have to translate as a desire for children however.


That's factually incorrect. Evolutionary, the only reason for sex is for passing on your genes.
Original post by Dalek1099
I haven't found any women to have sex with but having children is different to not having children because then at least I would brought some life into the world like my parents brought me into the world.You say you are living life for yourself and those who you love, would it not be likely that you would love your potential children and love them by bringing them into the world?(they are your future family after all).

If you want to be alive now but you won't let your children be able to be alive then that is immoral.


Well then you have just changed your argument. Instead of "you are being unfair to your potential children" it's now "you are being unfair to some of your potential children". Not surprised you quickly changed the morality argument.

Even if I would love potential children that does not mean it would necessarily be right or moral for me to have them. It also makes no sense to base what I should do only on the hypothetical that I may love them. The hypothetical that I wouldn't should also be considered. Not to mention the hypothetical of me being unable to care for them properly. And it is a decision I have made looking at all possible hypotheticals and what is most likely. And that to me is morally the best course of action. Rather than just having a child not thinking about all possible options, but instead just going with what everyone else does and what is the norm.

As for your last sentence. If you want to be alive now but are not willing to go copulate with every woman who will let you, then that is immoral according to your initial post. Your argument is inconsistent and illogical. And as I said, you cannot act immorally to something that does not exist.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The desire for sex is hardwired into us. That does not have to translate as a desire for children however.


Or we are hardwired to eat certain things but not to need their nutrients.

You can't deny instinct and nature and what it's for.


'Sex' with a condom isn't really the same as true sex, which is inextricably linked to reproduction.
Original post by driftawaay
Why did you reply to him?? Look at his rep bar for Christ's sake lmao


He's less ridiculous than he used to be.
He got most of those negative reps some time ago for some particularly awful posts he made.
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Or we are hardwired to eat certain things but not to need their nutrients.

You can't deny instinct and nature and what it's for.


'Sex' with a condom isn't really the same as true sex, which is inextricably linked to reproduction.


Well...very clearly you can. As like I said, many people choose to not have children.
Original post by SophieSmall
Well then you have just changed your argument. Instead of "you are being unfair to your potential children" it's now "you are being unfair to some of your potential children". Not surprised you quickly changed the morality argument.

Even if I would love potential children that does not mean it would necessarily be right or moral for me to have them. It also makes no sense to base what I should do only on the hypothetical that I may love them. The hypothetical that I wouldn't should also be considered. Not to mention the hypothetical of me being unable to care for them properly. And it is a decision I have made looking at all possible hypotheticals and what is most likely. And that to me is morally the best course of action. Rather than just having a child not thinking about all possible options, but instead just going with what everyone else does and what is the norm.

As for your last sentence. If you want to be alive now but are not willing to go copulate with every woman who will let you, then that is immoral according to your initial post. Your argument is inconsistent and illogical. And as I said, you cannot act immorally to something that does not exist.


I wasn't born though my father copulating with every woman but because my parents chose to have children after they married so your argument is wrong.If I can I have to give my potential children the same chance I had.
Original post by Dalek1099
I wasn't born though my father copulating with every woman but because my parents chose to have children after they married so your argument is wrong.If I can I have to give my potential children the same chance I had.


Just from that response you clearly did not understand my reply. And you are still being illogical and inconsistent.
Original post by SophieSmall
He's less ridiculous than he used to be.
He got most of those negative reps some time ago for some particularly awful posts he made.


His posts in this thread make it very hard to imagine how that's possible. :curious:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you