Well, then he should beware, because her health might change, her weight might change, her appearance might change, and then he’d have to dump her. If he wants to have her just the way she is, with no bumps along the road, better seal her in fiberglass. No relationship is going to last if one of the people (who cares so “deeply”, oh yes) is not willing to accept natural changes, especially ones that they contributed to.
You are missing the point. If I you bump my car, and I prefer to leave the damages intact, not get it fixed, and pocket the money you pay out to me, am I or am I not entitled to that money? Should you be not obligated to pay for the damage you gave to my car because I choose not repair it? In other words, do you have to pay for the consequences of your actions, or are they contingent on my choices? And if I can choose to not get the car repaired, should I feel compelled to not do so, to spare you money? Because YOU don’t want to pay?
BUT HE WON’T That’s the whole deal here. He wants off scott free. He didn’t want the kid, why should he pay for it? It’s not his fault the kid was born. He had nothing to do with it, right? So WHY on Earth would anyone anticipate that such a person would willingly pay for the support of a kid who he feels no moral obligation to? I mean, that’s been the whole premise here.
NO ONE IS STRIKING YOU WITH LIGHTNING. You are merely being asked to be responsible for a life you helped bring into the world.
You’ve got that right. I’ll make it simple for you: find a sterile woman. Find an older woman who can’t have any kids. Hey, women outlive men anyway, so what’s the big deal? Just stop with this bellyaching, you’re giving us all a headache.
Fine and dandy.
So, I suppose you are all in favor of abolishing animal cruelty laws? Because animals can’t have civil rights to be violated. And incest laws, no need for them either. And pedophilia—well, as long as we know that the 13 year old wanted to sleep with the 46 year old, there should be no law about that. Or with the 50 year old father sleeping with his 16 year old child. The child said it was OK, no civil rights being violated that I can see. So, our curent culture’s “morals” and social stigmas say that incest and sleeping with children is wrong. Some other cultures have no problem with it.
So, if you want to live in a place where men don’t have to be responsible for their offspring, where people eat embryos, where animal cruelty is acceptable, where incest and child molestation are legal, go move there. But in this culture, our morality (and therefore our laws) forbids that. Get used to it.
Why? Did I know that there was any possibility that the father would get his kid to move into the park? Was I ever informed and warned by other people that I’d better not go off telling people about how great the city was, because I might encourage homeless people to move in? Was such a thing common knowledge? Did I give the kid a ride to the park? Did I do ANYTHING other than just talk for a while to a stranger, who I didn’t even know had kids?
What does this have to do with a man putting sperm into a woman, that he KNOWS may get her pregnant, and he KNOWS that he might risk helping to create a child? Nothing. Nothing at all.
BTW, this thread was starting to veer off on the top of this page. This is definitely NOT a thread about whether a fetus is alive, that smacks of a general debate thread about abortion, the type we all want to avoid at any cost and never ever see again on any message board so long as we all shall live. It seems we’ve righted the boat now, excepting the little ignore-list fiasco that’s now thankfully been taken to the Pit.
Despite starting this thread I’ve mostly stayed out of it. My personal dislike of children would colour any substantive remark I make. I do think some people might be underestimating what it’s probably like to spend a huge chunk of your hard-earned resources every month supporting a child you didn’t want and would prefer didn’t exist. I suppose that over time the custodial parent will grow to love the child, while the noncustodial parent might grow to intensely resent the child’s very existence because of the financial burden it represents. For a parent who loves their child, it probably isn’t quite as hard to make the sacrifices necessary. For a checkbook dad who never wanted a child, the child is an abstract burden that creates hardships without creating any compensatory joys or rewards.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t have thought about that risk before the act of intercourse, what I am saying is that supporting the child really can amount to a substantial punishment…a punishment so great that for a person like myself who intensely dislikes children and fears the potential financial loss a child would mean to me, that I’m not sure any amount of birth control reduces the risk sufficiently. I think alot of people don’t realize how great the potential loss is before they engage in sex. I don’t contend that this makes any part of these arguments right or wrong, I’m simply mentioning that the full impact of the decision not to abort the child hasn’t been fully appreciated IMO.
I was not referring to physical changes in the woman, I was referring to the fact that the focus of the relationship is no longer on each other, but is on the child instead.
Okay, perhaps I misunderstood your point the first time. I did bump into your car and you did not ask me to. However, you did challenge me to a game of “chicken” and you knew full well that there was a chance that your car would be damaged in the process. I still do not feel I should have to pay for the damages to your car. If you didn’t want to risk the damage, don’t offer to play “chicken” with me.
My premise has been that the government has no place to force him to pay one way or the other. He may very well decide to help the child or he may not. It is not the government’s business either way. Laws are to protect people from harming others not to force people to help others.
Not asked, forced by the government. I have no problem with being asked. I have no problem with choosing to do so of my own free will. I have a problem with being forced.
Those are the two conclusions I have come up with as well. But this is a debate and I am arguing that the government has no right to force people to help others, even when the person being helped is the man’s child. It is kind of everyone to try and solve my particular problem, but that is not why I got involved in this discussion. I got involved because I find the government’s stance on this issue unacceptable.
That is basically accurate. I believe that we should have as few laws as possible to function as a society. I believe that is what our forefathers had in mind when they called this a free country. As it stands now, we have only a few freedoms that are protected by the constitution, but the 9th amendment was intended to protect a lot more. People have the right to make stupid and questionable choices with their lives. It is not the government’s place to interfere.
Surely you could have considered that it was possible. The odds are what, 1 in a million? If you stack birth control for a 1 in a million chance that a child will be conceived, you are still forced to pay.
Perhaps you were, perhaps you were not. Either way, when a homeless person arrived you assumed he would be thrown out, not sent to live with you.
Let’s say that it was. It does not make the ruling any less unjust.
I am not sure this one applies. The 9-month ride to the park is given by the mother alone.
Assuming that he doesn’t have kids is like assuming she is baron.
I find this analogy really amusing because I was thinking of the same general idea yesterday. Nightime’s response to this was at least as good as anything I could have done, so I have nothing to add.
And the same would apply if the woman’s ailing mother moved in next door, and needed help? Or the woman’s brother had a car accident, and needed to move in with her while he recovered? Any number of events can occur in a woman’s life, that would cause her to split her attentions between your relationship, and her other loved ones. So, you’re saying that if she felt any obligation to any other human being other than you, or that because you didn’t come first at every moment, you’d dump her? Nice. Really caring. The stuff of which great romances are made.
Not exactly. You wanted to play “chicken” with me, but you were driving an armour-plated SUV, which will sustain no damage. I was driving a vulnerable little Pinto. You still wanted to play chicken with me, even though you knew there was NO risk to your car, and that if any damage happened, it would most assuredly be to my car. But because you really wanted to play “chicken” with me, you went ahead, even though you knew that the laws and morals of our juristiction dicate that you share the costs of any damage. And I know this too, which is part of the reason I felt comfortable consenting to play “chicken” with you and your big SUV, while I’m driving my Pinto. So, you went ahead anyway, because you really wanted to play chicken with me. But then you bitch because when you do actually damage my car, I want to get the scratch that you gave to my little Pinto fixed, instead of just leaving it as-is, like you’d prefer. You don’t think I should be able to choose to get the car fixed, because it costs you money.
Unless they are considered ethically and morally obligated to do so, which is how it works in our society. One person’s selfishness does not trump another (more innocent and vulnerable) person’s basic needs.
You have a problem being “forced” to stop at stop signs too? Every day, you are “forced” to do a great deal of things. How, oh how do you endure the never ending torment of it all? You poor creature, you!
But you did feel compelled to share your tale of woe, and complain about how unfair it is that you are lonely and not able to have sex. Gee, thanks for sharing. We really feel sorry for you here.
Ah. I see. So, those jerks who barbequed the kitten in Missouri should have no punishment. They did nothing wrong. Nothing against the law. Leave them alone, to continue torturing kittens. And the man who seduces his 16 year old daughter (gets her to consent), well, no problem with that. No need for government interference there either.
Nice to know where you stand.
How will I know that I was responsible? A lot of people talked to this man, I was idly chatting with a person in a non-specific way. There is a distinct difference between chatting with a stranger about a myriad of subjects (not knowing his personal background, family, motivations, situation) and KNOWING that I was going to do an activity which was initially and specifically designed for a certain purpose—to create a human being. You seem to act as if every man who gets a woman pregnant is engaging in an impersonal and random act—not unlike passing them on the street and tipping their hat, offering them a seat, or lending them a newspaper. Every day we all do things and say things to strangers that may prompt them to take other actions that we cannot anticipate. We are not held responsible for every possible influence we may have over every random person we encounter. We are, however, held responsible for engaging in a very intimate and specific act that has a very real and tangible outcome, and one that we are very well aware of beforehand.
No, not exactly. If the man gives the kid a ride to the park, he knows that either the kid will not stay in the park at all, stay for a few days and then be removed, or the kid may be allowed to stay for a very long time. The man who gives the ride to the kid isn’t sure how long the kid will stay, but he decides to give the kid the ride anyway, because he wants to.
But you see, I didn’t do that. It didn’t even occur to me to give the kid a ride. I didn’t even know that there was a kid. The conversation I had with the father was lengthy, and about a great number of things. No one asked me to give the kid a ride. I didn’t even know the kid wanted a ride.
I never said I would, only that one could, and that the government should not interfere. People break up for the reasons you mentioned all the time. Some people are not caring at all, and most people are not caring all the time.
Well, if it were me personally, I would make absolutely certain you were aware of the potential damage, would insist I line my bumper with something to soften the impact, and would not consent to playing “chicken” until you assured me you had insurance that paid for damages when playing “chicken.”
If, however, none of those things were true, I would still conclude that you knew what you were getting into and the government should not interfere. I may choose to pay for the damages anyway, but do not feel it is appropriate for the government to force me to.
It is not appropriate for a government (especially in our “free” country) to define what is moral and amoral and what is ethical and unethical. Morals are like religious practices. Few people can agree exactly on every point and everyone should have the right to practice theirs as they wish (as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process).
Driving is not a right, but a privilege granted by society to those that consent to following the rules and show that they know how to follow those rules. If we had a policy where people needed a license to have children or even to have sex, then I would understand why all the government interference existed. But since such a thing is unconstitutional, the government has no business in this aspect of our lives.
The primary reason I broke a major rule of debating and brought myself into the picture is because I assumed at least one person would say that the example I cited would never happen. At least one person in this thread was having trouble fathoming the concept that a man could possibly want to have sex for a reason other than “fun” or child creation. Sometime you just have sex to keep the person from leaving you.
And I apparently came off sounding a lot worse than I feel. All these “Boo hoo” and “cry me a river” comments seem inappropriate to me. Injustice is nothing to cry over. Injustice is something to fix.
The points you keep bringing up always strike me on a moral ground. I see many, many reason why a man could consider himself morally obligated to raise the child, but no reason why the government should interfere. Different people have different morals and it is not acceptable for the government to force morals on anyone. The government should regulate behavior as little as they possibly can while still protecting the rights of others.
The man in my example was the mother and the “you” in my example was the father. So the man gave the ride to the park and “you” were not involved at all, just like you say.
And my point was that in a true “caring” relationship, some anticipation of unexpected (but yet possible) events may happen. And in a true “caring” relationship, the guy wouldn’t act as if he were being a put-upon victim because he participated in something that caused a change to happen in the relationship. Especially since this change was something that the man knew all along could be a possibility (even though he had hoped it was a remote possibility). I would expect a guy who is looking to have “fun” with sex to bail out as soon as there was a change or an inconvenience, but not so much from someone who “cares deeply”.
And I daresay you’d have a hard time finding anyone who would participate in your game, even with these stipulations. You are in a far easier position, you have no risks, and yet you expect the other person to be completely on their own, even though they are left in a far more vulnerable position. And, no “insurance” exists out there that will cover all damages that an armour-plated SUV makes to a Pinto during a game of “chicken”. No insurance is going to let the SUV get off without paying something. So, who wants to play chicken with you? Not too many, as you have already lamented.
But since you may or may not pay them (depending on your whim or mood) and since many other people wouldn’t pay unless they had to, the law exists. And if no such protection existed, I daresay that many people driving the Pinto would be less apt to play chicken with armour-plated SUVs. Padding notwithstanding. And all you SUV drivers would be bellyaching and complaining about how “unfair” it is because no one wants to play chicken with you.
And this explains why you are totally sanguine with the idea of kitten-barbequeing assholes getting away scott free and being left to torture more animals. Don’t want any laws to control that, do we? Because that would be a “moral” judgement, and the government has no place in making laws that have a hint of morality. (And as we know, kittens have no civil rights.) And, as long as we get the underage girl to agree to have daddy or some other adult have sex with them, that’s no problem either. No reason to get the government involved there, huh? It’s just peachy keen with you. No reason to make laws that try to prevent and control pedophilia. Those NAMBLA guys who discuss ways to seduce little boys, well, that’s no problem. If the NAMBLA guys can persuade the boys to go along with the sex willingly, then there is zero problem with you. Let 'em go at it.
Yes, I understand your position on this issue perfectly.
Is it a “right” to be able to bring a child into this world and yet not provide for it? Is it a “right” to contribute to something that will be very expensive to other people and yet not be expected to pay for your share of it?
Except that you have to convince the rest of us that there is an injustice.
Except that if the government does not interfere, there will be a whole lot of taxpayers paying for kids that their fathers have “elected” to not be responsible for. Because, after all, the men do not choose to feel resonsible for their own offspring, so we mustn’t hurt their feelings, or damange their delicate psyches by expecting them to behave in a way that conflicts with their particular moral standards. Better to have the taxpayers foot the bill. Better to have the kid go without.
Including the rights of the child and the taxpayers?
I am not following you. “I” talk to a man and tell him about my great town. The man then goes and gets his kid to squat in the park. The city expects me to pay for the kid’s upkeep, because I told the man about the great city.
But I didn’t tell the man to take the kid there. I didn’t take the kid there. I didn’t know the kid existed.
In my alternate scenario, “I” “deliver” the kid to the “destination”. (I do my part to get the kid to the park, just like a man does his part to get a woman get pregnant.)
In my alternate scenario, “I” give this kid a ride because “I” want to, and “I” do it knowing that the kid may stay, or may leave. (Just like when a man has sex with a woman, he knows that she may get pregnant, she may not, and if she gets pregnant, she may keep the kid, or she may not.)
The kid then decides to stay. (Or, the woman gets pregnant, and won’t get an abortion.)
The city is going to have to support the kid. (The mom is keeping the kid.)
In my alternate scenario, “I” did not know the kid was going to squat in the park beforehand, but I did TAKE the kid there, and I did know that the kid might stay. (The man had sex, knowing that there was a possibility of pregnancy, and that the mom might keep the kid.)
So in my alternate scenario, “I” am responsible for helping the kid get there in the first place, even though “I” didn’t know for sure if the kid would stay. “I” even hoped the kid wouldn’t stay. But “I” still gave the kid the ride. (Just like the man had sex anyway, hoping the woman wouldn’t get pregnant, hoping she wouldn’t keep the kid if she did get pregnant, but knowing all the time that she still could get pregnant. And he still had sex anyway.)
But “I” never did that. I just talked to the guy, about many various things. The idea to take the kid to the park was with the father. I had no idea that he’d do that, as I was talking to him about many things. Just like I talk to many people every day about many things. There was nothing really personal about it, and many people talked to the guy, and many people could have influenced him. I had no idea that my conversation would have such an impact on him. I talk to people all day. I talk to people on the bus, at work, at church. I yak about many things with many people.
Most people don’t have sex with different people all day. They don’t have sex with people on the bus, at work, or at church. Sex is a personal and intimate thing, and everyone knows that there is a specific risk that comes with sex (pregnancy). Chatting with people during your daily routine is not a personal or intimate thing, and there is not a specific risk (kids squatting in parks and having the city expect for you to support that kid) that is associated with chatting with random strangers.
Just wanted to pop in and say that, although I have for all intents stopped posting in this thread, I wanted to apologize to BlackKnight, Lightnin’ and Mr2001 for the invective. Child support and responsible procreation/birth control are things about which I care very passionately, and although I know I am right in my heart, I am unable to articulate intelligently exactly why I feel that way. No hard feelings, guys, I hope.
Both A and B knew perfectly well that what they were doing had, with the same precautions in place, created a great many bombs in the past. Their lack of specific intention to produce a bomb is no excuse.
Here is my point, put simply: If any person sets in motion, deliberately or not, a sequence of events with a specific natural consequence, and only an event completely outside of his control can prevent that consequence from occuring, it doesn’t absolve him of the resonsibility for that consequence. He knew the consequence. He knew there was nothing he could do to prevent the consequence. He set the chain of events in motion anyway.
The fact that someone else, also partly responsible, could stop it is irrelevant. It doesn’t change his role in things one iota. He’s still responsible for his part in it, unless he knew from moment one that the other party would stop it. And since no one can ever guarantee the actions of another…
Yeah, the woman has a bit more control. She can act to stop the sequence of events. But the man knew knew the consequence of these events, and he knew he couldn’t stop it. He set the events in motion anyway.
Any time a fertile man has sex, he faces the possibility that a child will result. This isn’t fair or unfair, it simply is. A woman faces the exact same possibility. A woman, pregnant by accident, who does not abort has not “chosen to have a child”. She simply didn’t go to extremes to stop the process. Having the child was the natural result of the (unchosen) pregnancy.
It does make sense to me that the person with the most control over a situation should bear the consequences of that situation. In that respect, since a woman has two chances to avoid parenthood, where a man only has one, and the woman has control over the latest possible choice, it would perhaps be fair to make her bear the consequences of that choice.
However, that leaves out consideration of the person who has the least amount of control: the child. While the man has at least one chance to avoid parenthood (abstinence), the child has zero control. And yet, when one makes a woman “bear the responsibility for her choice” by allowing a man to withhold support, what really happens is that the one person who had no control bears the consequences. You just can’t separate the issues and make Mom tough it out by herself without inflicting the hardship on the child.
I agree that it’s not fair that men have fewer choices than women once fertilization has occurred. However, I think it’s less unfair than letting the government or potential father force a woman to have an abortion, or forcing a blameless kid to suffer the consequences because its father wishes it had never been.
We seem to agree on the biological fact that it does indeed take mom + dad to create the situation.
GIven that fact, and presumably they share equal responsability for the situtation.
Possible scenarios:
Woman has abortion. = Woman has consequences (surgery/potential harm to body, complications etc). Man does not.
Woman has miscarriage = woman has consequences (harm to body, pain, potential for problem pregnancies in the future), Man does not.
Woman brings baby to term and wants to have baby adopted. Woman has consequences (various bodily changes, potential for death, pain etc.), man has option at this point to raise child by himself (and I believe that the woman in this scenario can give over custody only but the baby wouldn’t be put up for adoption) in which case both woman and man have consequences (woman would be obligated to provide support); OR baby is adopted out (if dad agrees), and woman has consequences (childbirth etc) but the man does not.
Woman brings baby to term and keeps custody, man either is part of child’s life (by marrying/living w/family) or has consequences re: child support.
In each of these scenarios, the woman * will always have consequences of the pregnancy*, and in most of them (2.5 out of 4), the man will not have any consequences whatsoever.
And yet there are folks arguing that reducing that scenario to 1 potential scenario (dad voluntarily accepts responsability for child), is a ‘more equitable’ solution?
The “insurance” I was referring to was her assurance that she intended to have an abortion. And you are correct, there is no way to 100% guarantee a man can avoid governmental interference, which is my primary reason for never consenting. The exact number of people willing to play “chicken” with me makes little difference seeing as how I am never willing to play anyway.
If I have 1 child with someone that makes $100,000 a year and 2 more children with someone that makes $20,000 a year, my personal sense of morality would tell me to give nothing to rich the lady and everything I can afford to the poorer one (I am assuming for argument’s sake that I live with neither). However, if I can afford the minimum payments the government requires me to pay the poorer lady, I will also be expected to pay money to the rich lady. Any money I am forced to give to the rich lady is coming out of the pockets of the poorer children that I would have given the money to. My own sense of morality regulates my decisions just fine, and the government’s interference makes it harder on both myself and the poorer family. And even if I had no morals at all and was completely selfish, I would still retain the assertion that I, and all other people, have the right to make their own decisions without governmental interference. My morals exist to regulate my behavior and my behavior alone. Other people’s morals exist to regulate their behavior and their behavior alone. It is not acceptable for the government in our “free” country to adopt a set of morals that all people must follow. People have the right to be completely altruistic, completely selfish, or any combination in between. There are obviously certain restrictions on behavior (such as stealing), but the fewer restrictions the better. That is what a free society is about. We don’t live in a society where a few hundred dictators (i.e. Congress and the President) rule our lives with an iron fist. We live in a society where we control our own lives with minimal oversight from government.
This particular SUV driver would not be complaining, because the right to refuse to play chicken with someone is just as important and in need of protection as the right not to be forced to live by someone else’s moral standard.
Men do not bring children into the world.
If you contribute something with a person’s permission then you are not expected to pay for the aftermath.
Naturally, that is why it is here on the Great Debate forum. Besides, what fun would a debate be if everyone was on my side?
My argument also includes the right of taxpayers to not be forced to pay for other people’s children. Morals and pity will lead to enough charitable donations to sustain those who need it. Americans are incredibly wealthy (at least compared to the citizens of other countries) and there are enough generous people in America to make sure that no one starves.
Yes.
Men don’t tell women to get pregnant. Men don’t tell women to have the baby (those that do are indeed responsible for the well-being of the child).
I can accept your new scenario up to this point, but the last step involves turning the government into the woman. The government needs to remain the government because my argument is that there should be no governmental interference, not that no possible moral ground exists for the man to support the child.
That is something I always found unreasonable about our court system. People get charged with murder at times even when they were not the one to do the killing. Conspiracy to commit murder I can accept, but the actual murder I do not agree with.
In this case the man is only guilty of an unintentional conspiracy to have a child (not sure what that would be called, since an unintentional conspiracy makes no sense). This is technically the same offense someone that donates sperm to a sperm bank is guilty of.
Every time.
All of them. Don’t underestimate the generosity of others. Do you know how productive pan-handling is? And those people are just common beggars. Children are far more effective at tugging on the hearts of the people and would be able to raise far more money. And when you consider that part of the government not making all our decisions for us includes the end of income tax, people would have a lot more money to give to those in need (if they should choose to do so).
Oh man. I just know I shouldn’t address this. As it stands now this thread has not been a debate about life vs. death and I know if I answer this I will hijack the thread, but I can’t just leave the point unaddressed either. I will try to be as unoffensive as possible, but I know some people will lose their cool.
Life is not necessarily a grand event that all people should be rushing to partake in. Life has its ups and downs and I cannot say with a straight face that it is better to have lived than never to have lived at all. If one truly believes that the child will not receive adequate care if it is born, then the most compassionate course of action would be to not allow it to be born.
I argue that this too should be changed. If the woman wants to give up her rights to the child and the man want to accept them, then she should not have to pay to support the child.
It was a natural consequence before abortion became plausible. Today, it’s well-known that pregnancy doesn’t always lead to birth.
If you have the mother’s assurance that she doesn’t want to have a child, you have no reason to believe that her becoming pregnant will necessarily result in a child being born.
How is this relevant? A man’s money staying in his own pocket is the default setting; that’s why the government has to step in and force him to pay.
The fact is that a woman is entirely in control of whether or not her pregnancy will lead to a child. Whether it’s the “yes” or “no” option that requires an overt act is irrelevant - by choosing not to have an abortion, she is electing to give birth to a child, just like someone who decides not to show up for his court date is choosing to commit a crime.
If the father makes it known to her and the state that he did not want the child and is unwilling to pay for it, she can still choose to give birth to the child and raise it out of her own pocket. But it’s ridiculous to impose her financial burden on the unwilling father, since she quite clearly brought it upon herself. The father is 50% responsible for causing the pregnancy; the mother is 100% responsible for the pregnancy becoming a child.
Sounds like either the doctor was incompetent, he misinformed her, or he told her the procedure failed and she decided not to try again.
Should’ve stopped with the poor lady. Should’ve not screwed the rich lady. People have to think ahead.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps in your case, your sense of morality would suffice, but in a lot of people’s cases, it would not.
And, I must say I cannot get a bead on your particular sense of morality, since it also includes an objection to any laws punishing acts such as embryo eating, kitten-torturing, animal abuse and child molestation. You seem to want to allow those NAMBLA guys to continue with their agenda of seducing young boys without any laws to stop them. So, I confess, I am really at a loss about what your sense of morality is.
Including the “right” to decide to torture animals, and the “right” to decide to persuade minor childred to have sex with them?
And if they selfishly want to torture kittens, that’s fine. If they selfishly want to seduce minor children, that’s fine. Their choice, after all. We mustn’t interfere, and impose our sense of morality on them.
Gotcha.
But you have been complaining. You talk about loneliness, and unappiness. You are feeling sorry for yourself, we can all see it.
Oh, I was unaware that the child spontaiously sprouted out of the woman’s womb, with no outside help. I was unaware that all the woman had to do was think real hard, and voilà! The kid starts to grow. I was unaware of the man’s complete and utter uninvolvement in the whole process. How interesting. Then what good are you men, anway? We obviously don’t need you to make babies!
Where do you get this? Why is this a hard-and-fast rule?
That is the MOST pathetic thing I’ve ever heard. So, you expect charities to pick up the slack for selfish people who refuse to live up to their obligations. Well, guess what. We’ve already got enough people doing that, and the charities can’t keep up. People are living on the streets. It ain’t working.
Yeah, ususually with a healthy dollop of the taxpayer’s money. Ever heard of “welfare”? Ever hear of “food stamps”? Who pays for this?
No, they just willingly plant the seed in her, and get the child to start to grow. Women can’t do it all alone, you know.
You have got to be absolutely, friggin’ kidding here. Oh yeah! That’s a great solution! Have 'em begging on the streets! :rolleyes:
Oh, a lot of these children can a decent chance of having a life, all right. If the loser deadbeat father will help pay for the child’s support. But, oh no! We mustn’t expect that! Better to have 'em begging in the streets! Better to rely on charities (that can’t keep up as it is)! Better to rely on the taxpayers! Or, easiest yet, terminate them before they are born! ANYTHING other than expecting Daddy to actually support the life he helped bring into the world!
You know, I have a really hard time believing you are serious. A really hard time. I won’t elaborate, but I really have to wonder.
It always was well-known that pregnancy didn’t always lead to birth. The child could miscarry. The mother could die. The mother could get kicked in the stomach by a horse. The mother could go to a back alley and get an illegal abortion. There are certain plants and teas that have been known to induce miscarriage.
And you think it is sufficient to rely on what she tells you (especially on such an important and potentially expensive matter) before the fact? No binding legal contract, just her musings? Especially when it is already well known and established that some mothers change their minds after they become pregnant? Since this is ALSO well known, to be completely amazed that the mother indeed may change her mind is more than a bit naive. People do change their minds, all the time. Especially when it comes to something that is growing in their body. Unless they can sign a legal, binding contract, you just don’t know what they might do later on, do you? Is it worth the risk? You decide. You take your chances.
Your employer’s money staying in his/her pocket is also the default setting: they pay you because you would stop working for them if they kept their money. They OWE you money, therefore they pay it. If they owe you back wages, there are legal ways that you can get them to be FORCED to pay you. Doesn’t that seem unfair? They want to keep the money in their pocket. How mean of you to want them to give it to you. How unreasonable of the government to help you get it from them.
All our money should just stay in our pockets. No taxes, no fees of any kind. We should not be “forced” to pay for anything, should we?
And in that case, I am sure the state would say that the father should have never had sex. It is a very simple matter—if you don’t want the responsibility, don’t have the sex. Don’t knowingly, willingly plant the seed that gets the kid started. But once you help get the kid started, it’s too late to say “I don’t want it!” If you don’t want something, don’t plant the seed that gets it started.
Should’ve stopped with the poor lady. Should’ve not screwed the rich lady. People have to think ahead.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps in your case, your sense of morality would suffice, but in a lot of people’s cases, it would not.
And, I must say I cannot get a bead on your particular sense of morality, since it also includes an objection to any laws punishing acts such as embryo eating, kitten-torturing, animal abuse and child molestation. You seem to want to allow those NAMBLA guys to continue with their agenda of seducing young boys without any laws to stop them. So, I confess, I am really at a loss about what your sense of morality is.
Including the “right” to decide to torture animals, and the “right” to decide to persuade minor childred to have sex with them?
And if they selfishly want to torture kittens, that’s fine. If they selfishly want to seduce minor children, that’s fine. Their choice, after all. We mustn’t interfere, and impose our sense of morality on them.
Gotcha.
But you have been complaining. You talk about loneliness, and unappiness. You are feeling sorry for yourself, we can all see it.
Oh, I was unaware that the child spontaiously sprouted out of the woman’s womb, with no outside help. I was unaware that all the woman had to do was think real hard, and voilà! The kid starts to grow. I was unaware of the man’s complete and utter uninvolvement in the whole process. How interesting. Then what good are you men, anway? We obviously don’t need you to make babies!
Where do you get this? Why is this a hard-and-fast rule?
That is the MOST pathetic thing I’ve ever heard. So, you expect charities to pick up the slack for selfish people who refuse to live up to their obligations. Well, guess what. We’ve already got enough people doing that, and the charities can’t keep up. People are living on the streets. It ain’t working.
Yeah, ususually with a healthy dollop of the taxpayer’s money. Ever heard of “welfare”? Ever hear of “food stamps”? Who pays for this?
No, they just willingly plant the seed in her, and get the child to start to grow. Women can’t do it all alone, you know.
You have got to be absolutely, friggin’ kidding here. Oh yeah! That’s a great solution! Have 'em begging on the streets! :rolleyes:
Oh, a lot of these children can a decent chance of having a life, all right. If the loser deadbeat father will help pay for the child’s support. But, oh no! We mustn’t expect that! Better to have 'em begging in the streets! Better to rely on charities (that can’t keep up as it is)! Better to rely on the taxpayers! Or, easiest yet, terminate them before they are born! ANYTHING other than expecting Daddy to actually support the life he helped bring into the world!
You know, I have a really hard time believing you are serious. A really hard time. I won’t elaborate, but I really have to wonder.
It always was well-known that pregnancy didn’t always lead to birth. The child could miscarry. The mother could die. The mother could get kicked in the stomach by a horse. The mother could go to a back alley and get an illegal abortion. There are certain plants and teas that have been known to induce miscarriage.
And you think it is sufficient to rely on what she tells you (especially on such an important and potentially expensive matter) before the fact? No binding legal contract, just her musings? Especially when it is already well known and established that some mothers change their minds after they become pregnant? Since this is ALSO well known, to be completely amazed that the mother indeed may change her mind is more than a bit naive. People do change their minds, all the time. Especially when it comes to something that is growing in their body. Unless they can sign a legal, binding contract, you just don’t know what they might do later on, do you? Is it worth the risk? You decide. You take your chances.
Your employer’s money staying in his/her pocket is also the default setting: they pay you because you would stop working for them if they kept their money. They OWE you money, therefore they pay it. If they owe you back wages, there are legal ways that you can get them to be FORCED to pay you. Doesn’t that seem unfair? They want to keep the money in their pocket. How mean of you to want them to give it to you. How unreasonable of the government to help you get it from them.
All our money should just stay in our pockets. No taxes, no fees of any kind. We should not be “forced” to pay for anything, should we?
And in that case, I am sure the state would say that the father should have never had sex. It is a very simple matter—if you don’t want the responsibility, don’t have the sex. Don’t knowingly, willingly plant the seed that gets the kid started. But once you help get the kid started, it’s too late to say “I don’t want it!” If you don’t want something, don’t plant the seed that gets it started.
I find most, if not all, of the more exotic activities you have listed in your posts to be quite distasteful. I personally would never partake in such activities. However, I do believe our system of government was not intend to interfere in the activities of its citizens, especially when their activities do not violate the rights of others. I believe my morals guide my behavior and my behavior alone. I can try to encourage others to follow my moral code, but to force my moral code, or any moral code for that matter, onto a person through a government agency is unacceptable.
These are obviously some of the more complicated issues (which is why you picked them), but I will do my best to explain my position.
Rights are a balance. In each and every situation you look at all parties involved and evaluate which rights get top priority. Is the right to torture animals or the right of the animal not to be tortured more important? If we decide that animals have no civil rights then there is only one right remaining. If the people want to conclude that animals do have the right not to be tortured and that it trumps the right to torture, then the animals win. We evaluate whether the right to molest children or the right of children not to be molested is greater. This particular issue has something of a consensus as I know of no one that is currently arguing that the right to molest children is greater than the right not to be molested.
In very general terms (and exceptions can always be found) the right not to have something done to you trumps the right to do something to someone (e.g. the right not to be molested is greater than the right to molest). The right not to do something to someone trumps the right to have something done to you (e.g. the right you have to refrain from molesting someone is greater than that persons right to be molested, thus they cannot force you to do it).
Following those guidelines, the people merely need to decide whether animals have rights.
I cited an example of what I see as an injustice because it pertained to this thread. The fact that I was the star of that example is irrelevant.
I also believe that it is unjust to force people to wear clothes when they go outside. This particular problem does not pertain to me, but I see it as unjust never the less. I didn’t bring it up because it was off topic. This thread just happened to be on a topic that does pertains to me (granted that is not significant because this thread pertains to all non-sterile people).
Most of what I am arguing for in this thread does not pertain to me, but if you want a very specific higher detailed example, I shall give you one. The government’s system will not support my child as well as I could. If I have to write a check to the mother then I cannot control how that money is spent. At the moment, I cannot afford children. At some point I may very well get enough money to support children, but exactly how much money is needed depends on whether the government will be interfering or not. If I have to write a check to the mother for child support, then I am not able to make sure that the money is spent wisely. If I were spending it, I would make sure everything was purchased on sale (I am not wealthy remember, so I must cut costs) and that nothing was wasted on unnecessary items such as drugs. But since I cannot do that, I have to make sure that I have so much money that the mother can waste everything I give her in the form of child support and I will still have enough money left over to buy the child everything it needs.
If I end up staying with the mother or if the mother does not sue me for child support then this would not be a problem. But if I only plan for the best case scenario, I am being irresponsible. Before I have children I need to be sure that I have enough money to raise the child even if I get laid off for a prolonged period of time, or if the mother is a drug addict, or if the mother beats or molests the kids and thus I have to hire someone to watch them full time to make sure she does not assault them, etc… There are a lot of bad things that can happen and if I do not prepare for them before having children I am being irresponsible. The government’s laws only make the situation even harder. My standards for myself are extremely high. I have never met anyone with standards anywhere near as high as mine. I do not drink alcohol ever on the off chance I might do something I consider unacceptable. My standards are mine and mine alone. I know how hard it is to live by my standards and would never try to make anyone live up to my moral code. I regulate my own behavior and others can do the same for themselves. You will never catch my children going hungry or without clean clothes, even if I get sick or die. Because I will prepare before having children. But my standards are so high there is a chance I will never be able to have children. If all people had my standards, most people would not breed. Obviously my standards are not meant for everyone to follow. And likewise, other people’s standards are not for me to follow. No moral standard should be in a law. If I cannot support my kids, I am irresponsible. If you cannot support your kids, are you irresponsible? I don’t know. Only you can answer that.
Men help make zygotes. Men are no more responsible for bringing children into the world than bullet manufacturers are responsible for gun deaths.
That is part of the reason why you ask for permission. Let’s say I have a bunch of cups that I am stacking on top of each other to see how high it can go. If you ask me if you can put a cup on the stack and I grant you permission, I will not hold you responsible if the stack falls over when you put your cup on. I knew full well what risk I was taking when I granted you permission to try and place the cup on the stack and if I was not willing to shoulder that risk alone, I would not have granted you permission. It is not like you can magically fix the now broken cups or anything. And they are my cups so I should clean them up. You can help if you want to, but I wouldn’t force you to, or even expect you to. I am aware that this is not a common opinion as I frequently find myself taking more responsibility for my decisions than people expect me to.
I never claimed anyone had the right to a home. To acquire a place to live one must work for it. If someone lacks the funds to care for a child then that person should take steps to ensure that a child is not born. Abstinence used to be the only fool-proof answer. But when abortion became legal a new option opened up and the responsibility was removed from the men because they are not involved in the last step (and in a chain-reaction, the last step is the only important one).
Welfare and food stamps are not necessary for survival. Americans are incredibly wasteful when it comes to food and we have plenty to go around. And any money not spent on Welfare and food stamps (and all the other programs I would ax if given the chance) would create a lot more pocket money for all those people that do work for a living. If we could give people free food and shelter without taking it away from someone else I would not mind, but all the money we spend on government programs is stolen from the taxpayers. The right not to have your stuff stolen from you trumps the right to get free stuff.
And if I could take all of Bill Gates’ money I could adequately support 100’s of children. But his money is not my money to take and the sperm donor’s money is not the mother’s money to take. If the father wishes to have rights over the child then he has responsibility. But if he waives his rights, he waives his responsibility.
If the mother wants the child and the father doesn’t, then the mother has all the rights and responsibilities. If the father wants the child and the mother doesn’t then the father has all rights and responsibilities (assuming the child is ever born). If neither want the child, then the third party that adopts the child has all the rights and responsibilities.
If you sell a knife to a person that has promised you that he will not kill someone with it, you are not responsible for any murders he commits. It is true that people lie and change their minds, but that does not mean the knife merchant should be held responsible.
When you perform a job you do so under a verbal or written contract that you will be paid for it. Unless the man makes a verbal contract with the zygote, there is no reason to force him to pay.
Perhaps this will explain it. If my standards for my own behavior on a 100-point scale were a 95, my standard for the behavior of others would be about a 5. I believe people have the right to be almost as irresponsible and incompetent as they wish to be. I personally choose not to exercise this right, but I do believe we all have it.
On that scale a 50 would be average. So while most people have a 50 for themselves and expect a 50 from everyone else, I have much higher than average standards for myself and much lower than average standards for everyone else (it makes me nice to be around since I never judge people).
Why do people keep wanting to throw this issue into the situations where the lack of father’s financial support would actually harm the children? I started the thread with an example, a particular sort of case, wherein the mother can easily provide adequate support for the child. I wanted to eliminate the “needs of the children” argument, which I suspected would trump all counterarguments in most people’s minds. So I thought of limiting the particular situation in which I personally proposed this “male abortion” might be allowed.
I remain generally convinced that to impose a positive obligation on somebody ought to require something more than simple causality. It ought to be done only if it’s actually correcting a harm that was caused by that person. Even if we grant the idea (that has been beaten to death on both sides) that a man is equally responsible for the birth, there are still cases in which there is no harm to the resulting child if the father just steps away. (There may be emotional harm, but never would our government force a father to stay in touch with the child to rectify that particular harm.)
