Locke said:
If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby...
I pose a question for you...
What if the woman having sex is ignorant of the fact that a baby can result from it. Is she then morally responsible for the baby, if she didn't know it was possible.
So... for an example, say a woman is diagnosed that she will never in her life become pregnant, something is wrong with her body. 100% she cannot have a baby. Then, as she is not able to have a baby or the reprocussions of her actions, would it not be fair to say, have as much sex as you want since nothing will ever come out of it.
Now, say that same women got pregnant. The doctors screw up or her body heals itself or it is just plain a miracle, is she then morally responsible to have the baby?
I would say she is not always. Here's why:
Let's say that you wake up from a deep sleep in a room that is not yours, with tubes coming out of your arms. These tubes drop to the ground, travel along the floor, and then climb up a bed next to you where they enter the arm of another man.
A doctor comes in and tells you that this man lying next to you has a problem with his liver, and you're the only one in the world that has the same blood that can save him. The doctor then tells you that he can fix the man, but it will take 9 months, so until then, you have to stay in this bed with these tubes coming out of your arm. You can't leave, take a break, or have the same life you once did while you're connected to this helpless man.
Are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?
Now what if the doctor told you that instead of 9 months, it is going to be for the rest of your life. Your life as you know it is over. The rest of your days will be spent in a bed, next to a helpless man. Now are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?
I do not think you are. There was no consent, explicit nor tacit, so one cannot judge you negatively for taking out the tubes therefore killing this helpless man.
Now what if the doctor said instead of 9 months, it was 3 hours. In 3 hours this helpless man will be able to get up and live a full, good life. Are you morally responsible then? Is 3 hours of lying in a room worth it to save someone's life, even though you hadn't agreed to it explicitly nor tacitly?
Do you see my point? If it were a lifetime, then nobody could say you're immoral for taking the tubes out of this helpless man, but if it were 3 hours, even though you have no obligation to this person, most would generally think that it was an immoral act.
On one end, you have a minimally decent samaritain, who helps others when it is of little or no hinderance upon themself. And on the other end, you have an unreasonable request, one that any person could choose to end if they do not feel like making a huge self sacrifice.
Now, where do you draw the lines? Up until what point is it a minimally decent samaritan who is morally obligated to keep this man alive? 3 hours? 2 days? 4 months? 15 months? 5 years?
At the same time, when is it morally acceptable to take the tubes out of your arms and say, this is unfair. This is not what I want, and what you're asking is unreasonable. 2 months? 5 months? 3 years? 10 years?
The point is that this point is subjective. Everyone in this situation must find their own path. There is definative answer for all people. So, as such, It is possible that someone who is 100% ignorant that they can have a baby feels that 9 months is too long to ask for something she doesn't want nor censented to.
*This idea is not my own, it is from an MIT philosphy/ethics professor. Well, I believe that where she teaches.
I just thought I'd give you that to read over and think about.
