Many social conservatives believe that contraception destroys the sacredness of sex by allowing sex to happen without fear of consequence; sex must only occur within the bounds of marriage, and without contraception, so that both marriage and sex remain pure. When contraception is readily available, sex becomes a promiscuous pastime no different than nudist model-plane-building, and that is wrong.
Let's assume sex is sacred.
A couple has sex outside the bounds of marriage, and accidentally conceives a child.
In this situation, the child is now the axis of consequence, because what other object could be? The couple did not want the child, so now this is their burden to bear. They are now forced to pay child support, house the child, feed it, and invest all of their time and energy into it.
Is it fair to a baby to make it the object of consequence? Is it fair to make one human being another human being's cross to bear? If we maintain that sex must be kept 'pure' in a traditionalist sense, it seems that the act of sex simultaneously becomes a vengeful minefield for the naive and helpless.
Why is sex pure if the very object it produces can be both life-shattering and life-fulfilling? How can sex ever be sacred if it produces a human that becomes a beacon of un-sacredness for two other humans? That baby didn't choose to become a negative consequent. I thought sacred and pure institutions were impartial.
A human should never be a consequence. Sex is only sacred if you want it to be.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)