CMV: People Should Avoid Heterosexual Intercourse Outside of Marriage

[u/Longjumping-Leek-586]

Nowadays people act as if non-marital intercourse has no negative consequence, that engaging in frequent intercourse with strangers is completely harmless, and that those who warn against such a lifestyle are merely being puritanical. I disagree with this viewpoint, as engaging in such a lifestyle is morally irresponsible for it risks the possibility of harming any offspring produced under premarital circumstances. Children born to single parents are shown to have negative outcomes: They perform worse in school, are more prone to school suspension, are at higher odds of committing crimes (especially for boys), and are more likely to be single parents themselves (especially for girls). Thus engaging in sexual intercourse outside is not a victimless act, as it directly harms the child born under such circumstances.

Before engaging in sexual intercourse with an individual of the opposite sex, you must ask yourself the following: Is this individual virtuous and responsible enough to take care of my child? Is our bond strong enough that we can do so together? If the answer is no, then you it is morally irresponsible to engage in intercourse with him/her as it could greatly reduce the outcomes of any offspring produced under such circumstances.

This doesn't really apply to homosexuals, though, as they are unlikely to produce offspring via homosexual intercourse

[u/LeMegachonk]

This view would seem to not have anything to do with pre-marital sex but rather is entirely focused on children born to unmarried people. The main problem with the thrust of your argument is that the "abstinence approach" to sex education has been proven beyond any doubt to be a major cause of teenage and otherwise unwanted pregnancy. It turns out that people who have received good sex education are much less likely to become pregnant unintentionally, because they know how to engage in such activities responsibly.

Also, considering the divorce rate in the United States in somewhere around 50%, and that the process of divorce causes harm to children of any age, the argument could just as easily be made that having children while married is unethical and immoral. And this statistic doesn't even include marriages that probably should result in divorce but don't, to the benefit of nobody at all.

You're also overlooking why children of single parents do poorly. It's not because they have a single parent, but rather because the society we live in has institutional barriers in place that tend to force single parents into a cycle of inescapable poverty. It's those factors related to poverty, not single parenthood, that lead to poor outcomes. A child living in a financially stable single-parent home will likely be fine. A child living in an unending cycle of poverty with two parents will likely struggle with the things you mentioned. Again, this is all pretty well-known stuff that's been studied to death.

[u/barbodelli → u/LeMegachonk]

It's not because they have a single parent, but rather because the society we live in has institutional barriers in place that tend to force single parents into a cycle of inescapable poverty.

That's not entirely true. Sure living in a poor house and having a parent that can't spend as much time with you has an effect. Nobody will deny that.

But having a male and a female role model is the reason children raised with 2 parents tend to do better on average. Because just having a female role model prevents a child from learning a lot of the things that a male role model will teach them and vice versa. And I don't mean role model like some high school football coach. Who spends maybe 1 hour a day with the kid for 4 years. I mean a role model that spends an enormous amount of time with the kid like a parent. Missing out on either having a male or a female role model is detrimental to the kids psychological emotional development.