Feud wrote:I know, and abortion was not an option I had included in such. The point I was trying to make is that life is a series of risks which we accept based upon a cost/benifit basis that we personally determine. Everytime I drive I risk death or injury, but I think the benifits of driving are worth it. Every tiime I east food I have not personally prepared I risk consuming something harmful, but I find the benifit to out weigh the cost. In the case of a couple, even with abortion illegal, I think that they should decided whether the benifits of abstinence out weighs the cost.
I am not going to respond to this right now, as there is a particular point that I am trying to make. If you care to hear my response, ask again in a few posts.
Feud wrote:I agree that if a couple, under no uncertain terms, wants to be 100% free of pregnancy then yes, abstaining is their only option. But I disagree with saying they should not have relations unless they "want to get pregnant". I would say that they should not have those realtions unless they are willing to accept the potentially long lasting consequences of their actions. Wanting a result and accepting that a result may be a potential consequence of a given action are two differant things.
A couple does not want to get pregnant precisely because, under your legal system, they don't want to deal with the long term consequences (which are, I might point out, only possible in a system where termination is not legal -- where termination is legal, there are no long term consequences). Thus, if a couple does not want to get pregnant, they should not have sex. Period. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. I can say exactly the same thing by stating that a couple should only have sex if they want to become pregnant. That is the contrapositive of the original statement, and is as logically valid as the original statement.
In logical terms:
A -> B <=> ¬B -> ¬A
A = a couple does not want to become pregnant
B = a couple may not have sex
A -> B = if a couple does not want to become pregnant, they may not not have sex
¬B -> ¬A = if a couple may have sex, they want to get pregnant
The statements are equivalent, so you are really only arguing semantics. Your statement is logically equivalent to "only couples that want to get pregnant may have sex." I think I have demonstrated that fairly well.
This means, again, by logical extension, that the only reason to have sex is to create children. Before I continue, do you understand that? I am not asking if you agree, only if you understand that this is the next logical step, based upon your statements.