Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

[RobertUrbanek]

Aside from legality, if a dying 13-year-old boy wanted sex with an attractive woman, would it be immoral to arrange for his wish to be fulfilled?

Would your answer be different if the dying teen was a girl or gay or lesbian?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 30 by RightReason]

Incest and bestiality have nothing to do with the case in point, and it is disingenuous to pretend they do. And the fact that I differ from you on this does not mean I have lost the ability or courage to make moral decisions, just that my moral conclusions lean more towards liberal freedoms than to conservative constraints. I am sorry if that displeases you, but there it is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 30 by RightReason]

Incest and bestiality have nothing to do with the case in point

Huh? You said, “So, if we are agreed that not all marital relationships are perfect, and the condition of the hypothetical dying 13 year old boy is not perfect, then what grounds do you have to deny him the right to make love, but not the married others?�

I explained that there are plenty of examples where we deny people the “right� to “make love�. We even frown upon doctors “making love� to their patients and teachers “making love� to their students. Why? Because the relationship matters. We frown upon a man “making love� to five wives and yes we frown upon incest and bestiality as well. We are allowed to make judgments about a relationship – and we do – all the time. We make judgments about whether it is right or good. In man’s best interest or in society’s best interest. The decision is based on science, biology, sociology, logic, reason, etc.

And the fact that I differ from you on this does not mean I have lost the ability or courage to make moral decisions, just that my moral conclusions lean more towards liberal freedoms than to conservative constraints.

Huh? My moral decision on this is about the relationship. It is about the facts/science/reason – which I laid out and provided. I’m not sure what “conservative constraints� have to do with it.

I am sorry if that displeases you, but there it is.

There what is? That you think it is more important to protect the freedom of a 13 year old to be able to do what he wants and be able to get off sexually, then it is to consider the consequences and significance of such actions? Especially when those actions can have such huge long term consequences. Yes, that not only displeases me, it saddens me. It’s simply not well thought out.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 32 by RightReason]

I entirely agree with you that the relationship is key. If you refer back to my post #21, you will discover that this was the first point I made.

Generally, we deny people the right to make love when there are good reasons for doing so. I have asked for your reasons in this particular case; citing different cases does not constitute such a reason.

Indeed, the only pertinent reason you have offered is that the girl involved might get pregnant. But using contraception pretty much negates this risk. Using two methods of contraception (say, the IUD and a condom) reduces the risk of pregnancy down to about 1 in 10,000. Denying the couple the opportunity to make love where the effectiveness of mitigating the risk is at the 99.99% level seems to me to be pretty draconian.

So you need another reason to justify your position.

My thinking, on the other hand, is basically the classic liberal position, 'Provided no harm is done, it should be allowed'. If you can demonstrate such harm follows inevitably in this case, it follows that I shall change my opinion regarding it.

As for conservative constraints; well, it seems to me that the classic conservative position is 'If I disapprove, it should be banned'. And this stance is rarely, if ever, supported by reason, logic, science, etc, and is generally simple prejudice. I don't find this to be satisfactory and persuasive ethical argument.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 33 by 2ndRateMind]

I entirely agree with you that the relationship is key. If you refer back to my post #21, you will discover that this was the first point I made.

Generally, we deny people the right to make love when there are good reasons for doing so. I have asked for your reasons in this particular case; citing different cases does not constitute such a reason.

I gave the reasons to which you then replied no relationship is perfect so how can we say an adult married couple can have sex but not an unmarried 13 year old couple where one party is dying? I already provided the reasons why that is a bad idea, but you ignored my reasons and just flung out some kind of general – we can’t decide that one situation is good another not. At which point I said of course we can – we do that all the time and I cited examples.

Indeed, the only pertinent reason you have offered is that the girl involved might get pregnant.

First, the chance that the girl might get pregnant would have huge consequences leaving a baby without a father and a 13 year old mother. But in addition to that the act has negative consequences to all parties involved, regardless if pregnancy results. The 13 year old girl, the baby, and even the dying boy (there are psychological consequences he would have to deal with before he actually died). Also, there are negative consequences to society who will likely be picking up the tab of any manifestation of physical or psychological harm resulting from the situation. The situation would also of course affect any extended family of the girl and the boy and something they may be forced to deal with.

So you need another reason to justify your position.

LOL! I don’t need another reason to justify my position. Like I said, for a 13 year old dying boy to have a one night stand with a 13 year old girl is immoral due to the possible negative consequences to all involved. As you mentioned early we need to look at the risk/benefit factor. The risks far outweigh the benefit in this scenario. One kid getting off does not trump the potential negative physical and emotional consequences that could follow. The act would simply be selfish – plain and simple and not taking into consideration the effects on the girl, the potential child, the family, society, and even the boy himself.

My thinking, on the other hand, is basically the classic liberal position, 'Provided no harm is done, it should be allowed'.

You are correct. That is basically your position, and it is a weak one. It fails because you cannot know that no harm is done. In fact, social science supports my position, as well as biology. Social science demonstrates that the sexual act has consequences beyond the physical orgasm and actually this research is even more true for young girls who research shows have a very difficult time separating the sexual act from love/intimacy/long term commitment. And of course science supports my position that pregnancy can result from sexual intercourse. And my position supports that when pregnancy results in unmarried teen agers the children suffer and they suffer even more when Dad is out of the picture. That’s simply what the research shows.

If you can demonstrate such harm follows inevitably in this case, it follows that I shall change my opinion regarding it.

Often we might not see immediate damage from a situation like this, but follow up with any teen who had one night stand sex, especially if they did so as young as 13 and see how it might have affected them when they reflect upon it years later. And sometimes the harm is immediate. The girl might regret her decision. And then when the boy actually dies she feels shame and guilt and emptiness. She might start withdrawing from things she use to enjoy or it could affect her self esteem as much of the research indicates for teen age sexually active girls. The boy might spend his remaining days feeing guilt and shame that he basically used this girl for his own selfish pleasure – for a moment of fleeting gratification. He might wish he had done something more noble in his time remaining. They both might stress if their action resulted in pregnancy and have great anxiety for the next month until they know for sure. And if infact their contraception failed – which research shows teen agers are more likely to have user failure – then we would see very immediate damage. I could go on and on.

As for conservative constraints; well, it seems to me that the classic conservative position is 'If I disapprove, it should be banned'.

LOL! It isn’t about what I think. It is about the reality of the situation and being honest, acknowledging facts and truth. Quite frankly, I’m still shocked that you actually can sit at your key board and type that you would be cool with the scenario you present. I find that difficult to believe. Lefties are all about their anything for “freedom�, especially hypothetical “freedoms�, but I doubt if it were your son or daughter were one of the parties in this scenario you would support him/her. And if you would, I think it would be a sad disservice to both the boy and the girl. It is not the kind of peace/pleasure the boy is actually looking for. I'm always amazed at what is exposed when we draw liberal arguments out to their logical conclusions. We actually see the advocation of a one night stand for a dying 13 year old boy. To encourage or support the hypothetical de values the dignity of the human person and is therefore immoral.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 34 by RightReason]

So, I sense we are not going to agree, or even find compromise, on this matter. And I have said all I want or need to say. So goodbye and good luck.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

So, I sense we are not going to agree, or even find compromise, on this matter. And I have said all I want or need to say. So goodbye and good luck.

Hmmmm . . . perhaps part of the problem is our outlook regarding moral truth. I see it as absolute – therefore, not exactly something that can be compromised. It appears you see moral truth as relative. Now there are arguments to show it is illogical to consider moral truth relative, but that is obviously an entirely different topic. So good-bye and peace to you.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 36 by RightReason]

Well, I was inclined to let you have the last word, but I can't let you get away with this. I am quite happy to think that morality is objective, and objective morality is 'God's Will'. The question I would raise, is: can we say for sure that what we think is morality, is actually God's Will? I don't think we can, but I do think gradually, in fits and starts, over historical time, humanity is converging there unto.

In this case, I admit that 13 years old is not the ideal age to become pregnant. But a) if sensible precautions are taken, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of this, and b) we do not know from the OP whether the girl is 13 years old, or 15, or 18, or 21 or 30.

Furthermore, I am a little perturbed that you think that this unlikely pregnancy is necessarily a 'harm'. Mostly, people regard babies as 'little bundles of joy', and are highly delighted when a new one enters the family. And the poignant advantages that would accrue in this case of a dying father is that a) he will have something positive to consider for the rest of his foreshortened life, rather than his impending demise, and b) his girlfriend will have something of him tangible and living for solace when he is gone.

Which way would God vote? I don't know, but I would err on the side of kindness.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

I am quite happy to think that morality is objective, and objective morality is 'God's Will'.

I didn’t really mention God. Morality or right from wrong is something that can be determined (known) regardless of belief in God. It can be known via observation of the world we live in, acknowledgment of this world and man’s relationship with this world.

The question I would raise, is: can we say for sure that what we think is morality, is actually God's Will?

There is no need to say this. To the non believer, it is irrelevant what God thinks or wants. To the believer, morality can be known via God’s creation – Scripture or Revelation or the Church are not necessary to know morality – they simply confirm it.

In this case, I admit that 13 years old is not the ideal age to become pregnant.

Thank you for your honesty. Now ask yourself why that is something you and me and really everyone can recognize? It’s not rocket science, right? Right/wrong is something all men can know via observation of the world, logic, and reason.

But a) if sensible precautions are taken, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of this

Again, is it moral to play Russian Roulette – knowing even if the odds are in your favor, the result is fatal if the odds don’t go your way? Especially considering what is gained is not all pleasure/fun. There are consequences – even if those consequences don’t result in a new life. Like I mentioned there are negative psychological consequences associated with this hypothetical as well.

, and b) we do not know from the OP whether the girl is 13 years old, or 15, or 18, or 21 or 30.

The age of the girl is actually irrelevant as well – other than actually simply being creepy if she were any older than 19 or younger than 13. However, the act would be immoral regardless of the girl’s age. That’s kind of how morality works. It isn’t relative – it’s objective and absolute.

Furthermore, I am a little perturbed that you think that this unlikely pregnancy is necessarily a 'harm'. Mostly, people regard babies as 'little bundles of joy', and are highly delighted when a new one enters the family.

Nice try. Look little babies are awesome – that doesn’t mean we encourage unmarried teenagers to have them because well babies are soooo cute. That would actually be selfish and reducing the baby to property/things to make us “happy� and not considering their needs.

And the poignant advantages that would accrue in this case of a dying father is that a) he will have something positive to consider for the rest of his foreshortened life, rather than his impending demise,

Again – it would be selfish and not taking into consideration the child left behind. It also fails to recognize the negative effect knowing he has a baby on the way that he will be unable to provide for and take care of as a father should in his remaining days would be devastating.

and b) his girlfriend will have something of him tangible and living for solace when he is gone.

Again, selfish, selfish, selfish . . . we don’t treat human life as some kind of teddy bear to comfort us. Also, the baby needs a father.

Which way would God vote? I don't know, but I would err on the side of kindness.

I would err on the side of kindness too and when we do -- the only truly kind thing to do would be to not think it kind to simply want to help get some 13 year old boy off, knowing the consequences for all parties involved.

As for which way would God vote? God can’t contradict the world He created. Observation of the world we live in, how the body works, biology, man, man’s relationship with the world, science, shows us it would be contrary to natural law for an unmarried dying 13 year old to purposely have sex knowing he would not be around for the partner or the potential baby.

The world we live in has “rules� that we all are subject to. These rules aren’t punishments – they are simply the way the world was designed and works. There is a famous expression that goes . . .

God always forgives.
Man sometimes forgives.
Nature never forgives.

Being human beings we are subject to the laws of nature. If you are a believer you attribute these laws of nature to God, but even if you are a non believer and don’t want to give God the credit, you can’t deny the laws exist. For this reason we can say with confidence, the hypothetical presented in this thread is immoral.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 38 by RightReason]

Hmmm. I suspect you need to be rather more forensic in the way you distinguish between fact and value judgment. The fact that the sun rose this morning does not mean the sun ought to have risen this morning. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume put it 'one cannot derive an ought from an is'. Your rules seem to me to be 'ought' rules, rather than 'is' rules. They may satisfy you, but others would seem at liberty to differ, since they are opinion, not actuality.

In this case, the (faint) possibility that a girl may become pregnant does not mean either that she should ought to become pregnant, or that she ought not. Either attitude is a reflection of our individual moralities, rather than a decisive reality that can, in some way, be verified by appeal to empirical experimental evidence.

Best wishes, 2RM

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. I suspect you need to be rather more forensic in the way you distinguish between fact and value judgment. The fact that the sun rose this morning does not mean the sun ought to have risen this morning.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying as observers of this world the sun rises and sets. I didn’t say anything about ought other than we ought to acknowledge that the sun rises and sets via observation of the world we live in. Do you understand the difference?

In this case, the (faint) possibility that a girl may become pregnant does not mean either that she should ought to become pregnant, or that she ought not.

Observation reveals to us what happens or might happen when a boy and a girl have sex. Observation reveals to us what happens when a child does not have a mother and father. Observation reveals to us the difficulty of teen agers having children, especially single teen agers. Observation reveals to us the emotional consequences of having sex for teens. These collected facts aren’t judgments – they are observed facts. They also aren’t good or bad – they just are. However, based on what we observe and acknowledge, we can determine what makes sense. We can determine what is right/good – what is in man’s best interest. And it is at this point that we as rational human beings can make statements like ought.

Sex is good. But forcing someone else to have sex is harmful and not in man's best interest. Therefore, we ought not rape. Most human beings are quite comfortable with making the value statement, We ought not rape. It can be determined via acknowledgment about the way the world works.