The Colt 45 is on ice, the baby oil is on the nightstand, it's a hot night in the city, so let's examine wingnut ideas regarding sex, ideas so exciting, you won't want to have sex anymore, ever.
Here is a person at Pajamas Media Life-Style who wishes to inform us about The True Meaning of Sex. (I am going to ignore the long opening segment about Ayn Rand and sex, because when someone picks a fight with Ayn Rand about sex, and Ayn Rand wins, well, I don't go into detail about tentacle porn either, though that is a far more mentally healthful subject.)
Enjoy the sexy.
So it seems with the culture at large. An act which epitomizes connection has become detached from its vital moorings, divorced from marriage, divorced from love, and – most consequentially – divorced from parenthood.
He means that it's bad to fuck without a baby occuring.
Now, I myself have had sex that has resulted in further humans. Within the legal bonds of long-term monogamous heterosexual matrimony, no less.
However, while I am no Lothario what takes the singular recherche biscuit, the numerator of times I've had fuck-fuck far exceeds the demoninator of instances where the deed occured in hopes of me ultimately having to wipe the shit out of tiny asses.
What I am saying is that in my experience, sex was and is about sex, and the procreation was in two cases out of three the result of meticulous hottness aforethought (the last one was the result of Irish Family Planning, which is to say, an oopsie).
Despite a disproportional focus in public discourse on rape, incest, and the health of mothers, most abortions prove elective, committed for no other purpose than ignoring reality, shirking responsibility, and dismissing consequence.
It surely is a blow to the pro-choice side that most abortions are to do with choice.
You slut you had sex NOW DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES! THUNDER OF THOR!
This desire to erase any trace of a child’s existence informs the irrational claim that the child wasn’t really a child anyway. The emotionalism surrounding that claim erupts mightily when challenged, because otherwise rational people know in both their hearts and minds that, if a child exists upon conception, its parents bear responsibility for it.
Quid pro arglebargle fooferah.
The same principle applies to procreation. A neighbor in need has no moral claim to your assistance. However, a child which exists as a consequence of your own action does. As with the hit and run scenario, intention proves largely irrelevant. The consequences of your actions exist in reality and define your responsibility regardless of any wish to the contrary. Just as the duty to remain on the scene of a collision exists whether it was an accident or not, so too does the duty to care for one’s children. Pretending that an unborn child is not really a child proves fundamentally no different than pretending a struck pedestrian was really a dog.
Uh, my neighbor in need does have a moral claim to my assistance...?
And yeah, sex, and the always complicated affairs of the heart are herein made equivalent to a horrible traffic disaster, and that's not weird?
So, according to this Morality, if your neighbor gets hit by a car you're cool and are solely obliged to mix drinks, but if you fuck and get pregnant, DEAL WITH THE LIFE RUINING CONSEQUENCES YOU SLUT.