I was kind of wondering something similar myself bd after some recent comments by more than pler. But why stop there.
Since men also have dirty, nasty illicit sex, what should there consequence be? We couldn't in good conscience adopt children to single men when they fail to help produce a viable pregnancy every time they have sex. So, what are some consequences for the men and also for the women who fail to become pregnant (other than the adoption suggestion which logistically, I don't think could possibly work)?
Since illicit sex is "wrong", what are some "consequences" that could be payed for these "crimes", "sins", "wrongs", etc.?
Could we deny treatment for std's because those people consented to sex and likewise made mistakes?
At one time in the american colonies, any kind of sex (except married sex) was actually against the law and could be punished under the law. These laws actually affected women much more than men because women are the only ones who can *possibly* manifest a physical symptom of "illicit" sex. However, at that same time, abortion was technically legal, usually performed by mid-wives and recipes for contraceptives and advertisements for contraceptive devices were widely traded among the women. So, while it was against the law to have sex, it didn't stop anyone from having sex. Threat or fear of pregnancy and/or std's have never stopped anyone from having sex, historically and currently.
I'm with you. I don't understand this fascination with attempting to punish people for having sex.