Conception shall not be classified as, or merely equal to simple causality.
You are asking to remove the line of reasoning that is of all reasons, the most paramount and should form the reference of thought.
Even if you strictly consider financial needs, as other posters have already pointed out, financial situations change. A mother’s ability to be the sole supporter could change.
Conception is a partnership. Just because one of the partners possesses the ability to “go it alone” does not release the other partner from responsibility and obligation. Obligations exists connecting both partners to entities created as a result of their union. Need or the lack of need can’t excuse commitment, responsibility, or obligation to the entity.
Interesting how you consider child molestation and animal torture “exotic”. I daresay most of us would use stronger terms. But of course, that is because we would be making a moral judgment on them.
And when I mentioned them repeatedly on this thread, you did nothing to contradict the impression that you had given that you were OK with such “exotic” activities being allowed to remain legal.
But in discerning who has more “rights”, aren’t we making a “moral” judgment?
Who are “we”, exactly? The government? The voters?
But if an adult can persuade a child to have sex, isn’t the child consenting? You wouldn’t want to interfere with the child’s right to choose, would you? To decide that a child is too young to choose would be making a moral judgment. And, since animals don’t have rights, and since people kill and eat animals for food, why would anyone care if someone wants to torture an animal? Only on moral grounds could someone decide to not allow animal torture. And we can’t have that! No moral judgments! Some people want to torture animals, and they must be allowed to make that choice.
I’m sure cattle don’t want to be killed and eaten, and yet they are. I’m sure kittens don’t want to be tortured, but yet, why not let them be tortured? Cows are killed, why not kittens? You can’t have it all your way. Some things come down to moral judgments. And you are all against that, right?
“People”? Who are these “people”? The same people who get laws passed that make it illegal to torture animals? The same people who decide that fathers should be responsible for their offspring?
I don’t know how you bear to get up in the morning, with all the burdens around you—all the injustices assaulting your sensibilities at every turn.
You are straying into a different area of discussion: whether or not custodial mothers should be allowed to piss away child support money. Of course, they should not. That the system is flawed in this regard is probably undeniable. But it in no way invalidates the fact that men should be responsible for supporting their offspring. And it in no way invalidates the case that, if left to their own devices, many men would spread their seed hither and yon, with no intention of supporting their children. And the taxpayes would be footing the bill for it. (And, I hasten to add, my irritation for the irresponsible mothers in these cases is great as well. But their situation makes it more difficult for them to skip out, doesn’t it?)
Including the moral standard to not torture animals, and the moral standard to intervene when an adult persuades a child to have sex?
Ah. I understand. So, no man is actually a father of a living, breathing child. He is only responsible for a zygote, nothing more. So, when a man actually wishes to have children, he really can’t have them. He can never actually be responsible for his part of bringing another human being into the world. He can only be responsible for a zygote, and that’s it. The child—well, that’s none of his doing. And no use in referring to DNA testing to prove his fatherhood. DNA only can prove that he helped create a zygote, not a child.
So, during all of these child custody cases, where the dad loves and wants his kids? He has NO RIGHT to them. No visitation, nothing. They aren’t his. He should never have custody, he is not entitled. After all, all he did was help create a zygote! The mother did the rest! Men should never have claim to these former zygotes (now children) because they really have no connection to these children.
So, which is it? Can a man claim a child as his child only when he WANTS it to be his child? But when he doesn’t want it, he has no connection to it, and can claim, “I didn’t help create a child, just a zygote”? You can’t have it both ways. It’s got to be one, or the other. I’m sure many fathers would be distressed to learn that, according to you, they have no children.
You speak of cups, and you only speak for yourself.
If someone asks my permission to drive my car, I will naturally assume that if they crash my car, they will be responsible for making it right. If they ask my permission to use my computer, same thing. Where I come from, asking permission does not equal allowing the person to destroy whatever they asked to use, without any expectation of being responsible for their actions.
Even children?
No, even back in the old days, the mom could take some crackpot herbal brew, and get the kid to miscarry. There have always been ways for women to dispose of unwanted children.
This is a topic of another thread. The theory that people would give more voluntarily if they were not taxed is an interesting one, and one that perhaps many of us would not disagree with. But, it still does not negate the fact that men should be responsible for their own offspring.
No he doesn’t. Because all men do is create zygotes. He can only lay claim to a zygote—he has no claim on the child. It is not his to take. No matter how much he wants the child, he should have no access to it.
Knives have many uses. Every cook has a knife in their kitchen, knives are commonplace items, with a myriad of uses.
Sex has few uses. It has a dramatic risk for one thing, and one thing only. If you know that even when someone thinks they won’t keep a kid now, but they may change their mind (as we all know happens) then to still engage in sex under those circumstances is folly. Especially when so much is on the line.
Ah yes. The zygote. The entitiy that is merely a zygote when the father does not want it, but is magically transformed into a child when the father does want it.
The mother’s ability to support the child is completely irrelevant to the father’s responsibility. They both participated in sex. They both contributed 50% of the DNA to create a new person. To say that one parent should have to shoulder 100% of the responsibility for that child just because she can makes no sense. It’s his kid too.
No, she’s not! The pregnancy will naturally result in a child. This is the nature of pregnancy.
Frankly, I find the assumption that abortion is such a simple solution its mere availability absolves the father of all responsibility deeply offensive and disturbing. It’s not a little switch the mother gets to flip - on, you have a baby, off, it’s like you were never pregnant. It’s destroying something that’s growing in your body. Something that would have been a child. Your own child. That’s not simple. It’s huge. For some of us, it’s even unthinkable.
That is precisely correct. I called them exotic because it has no moral stigma one way or the other.
When I use the word moral I refer to it in the sense of declaring something right or wrong. I do not believe it is wrong to do anything. I do not even believe in the concepts of right and wrong. You want a reason not to rape people? It is rude and discourteous. Its being “wrong” or not has nothing to do with it.
In order for us to cram 270 million people into such a small area without them all living in constant fear for their safety, we have to put certain restrictions on behavior. In a free country such as ours, the fewer of these restrictions the better. The more restrictions you place on a person’s behavior, the closer we come to a dictatorship or socialist system. In order for America to truly be called the “land of the free” we must be extremely cautious whenever restricting any behavior.
The voters of a particular state or city, town, etc… Any time any right is taken away, it should be voted on by the people whom the right will affect. The removal of rights should be so infrequent that it will be no trouble to allow the voters to participate. Even then, it is the job of the courts to make sure our restrictions do not violate our Constitution.
The federal government should only have laws that states would not apply fairly (such as interstate commerce laws). If the people of one state decide that animals have the right not to be tortured, that does not mean that people in other states cannot still torture animals.
And since times change, people should also have the right to petition for a re-vote on an issue every X number of years.
Well, yes actually.
That pretty much sums it up.
Here is an example. My own sense of morality states that if I cannot afford to properly raise a child (and I define what properly is for myself), then it is better that the child not be born. This mean that my sense of morality states that aborting a child is favorable to allowing it to live in poverty.
Clearly this is not the only opinion. There are others that feeling that killing a fetus is wrong and it is better for it to live in poverty than to be killed.
Neither opinion is right. Both opinions are made on moral grounds and both are equally valid. For the government to enforce either opinion is unacceptable in our free country.
That is exactly why I think neither cows nor kittens should have the right not to be killed.
All laws are unnatural. In order to survive we must kill. Some people choose not to kill animals, but they still kill plants, fungi, bacteria, etc… Laws are there only to allow a society consisting of an unnaturally high number of people to function anywhere near smoothly. Our country was founded because people felt that too much regulation in their day to day decisions was unnecessary and intolerable. I am not saying that no society can function with restrictions on every behavior, only that that is not what America is about.
I don’t recall voting on the father’s responsibility issue. And I realize that this is a republic and not a democracy, but this was a republic founded on the principle that governmental intervention in the people’s private lives should be kept to a minimum.
The government cannot enforce (or even write out) a law that accurately describes what do to in every possible situation. Each situation is unique and only the people involved can accurately decide what should be done. We cannot have a government agent living in every single home watching everything that goes on (nor would most of us want that). We instead leave the government out of it and let people regulate their own lives. Our system is flawed because behavior cannot be regulated exactly without someone always around to enforce the laws. If a law has a loop-hole that allows certain people to avoid the regulations that the law was meant to provide then the law has to be either fixed (which usually is not possible) or removed entirely. To have laws that regulate behavior in an unbalanced manner (such as a law that would make minorities pay a higher percentage of income tax than white people) is unconstitutional. Having a law that only forces certain people to follow it even though it could reasonably apply to others, is unconstitutional. Allowing people to decide themselves how the child support issue should be dealt with is the only way to allow it to apply to all people equally.
Correct. If one cannot find anything to base a law on other than morality, then there should be no law.
Yes. Men cannot have children. DNA contribution is all they can do.
It is my opinion that men should not have rights over children unless given those rights by the mother. Men do not have children. It is one of those things that make women unique. Women have to put up with all the troubles that pregnancy and birth cause, but only they can have children. A child does not belong to a man any more than a car belongs to the bank you got the loan from (and in this regard the only thing they have in common is that if I choose to give up my car by stopping payments on it, it goes to the bank by default).
Yes. In my opinion the government should not force even the mother to take care of her child. Fortunately, there are usually private citizens that are willing to take care of children that the parents are not.
True indeed. But I am specifically talking about laws. If a law forces a pregnant woman to have a child and forces her to care for the child once it is born, then I do not consider it unfair to force the father to pay for the child as well since it treats them both equally (I do not thing such laws should exist at all, but if we do have to put up with a law that forces a mother to give birth, forcing the father to care for the child as well is no more unjust). When abortion (and the other forms of fetal killing) became legal, it no longer was balanced to force the father to pay for the child.
I only meant that the father gets the child under default circumstances. If the mother has a specific person in mind for the child (e.g. she wants to give it to a friend), then that person gets it. But usually, when the mother does not want the child she does not have a person in mind and does not care who takes care of the child and therefore, the father should have the first chance at adoption (because aiding in the production of the zygote is more than the nothing all the other potential adopters did, though not much more).
Most knife use does not lead to murder and most sex does not lead to children.
That sounds about right to me. However, at the time in question, there is no child, there is only a zygote, embryo, or fetus. The man and woman can agree that she will let it become a child and it will be raised by the two of them, or the man can disagree and the woman can decide whether she wants a child of her own.
But you don’t get to arbitrarily decide what “making it right” means. Suppose someone wrecks your 1990 Accord; being responsible for his actions means replacing it with a car of at least equal value. If you decide you’d rather have a brand new Lexus, you’re out of luck: the careless driver doesn’t owe you any more than fixing the mess he caused.
The mess caused by an unwilling father is the pregnancy, not the child. Being responsible means helping with a solution to the state of pregnancy, not necessarily the mother’s preferred solution.
But abortion was illegal, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to base child support laws on the potential availability of an illegal act; that would be like banning guns and saying “don’t worry, you can still get one on the black market if you really need it.”
The pre-legal-abortion child support laws had to assume that the pregnancy would only end in childbirth or unintentional miscarriage. Since that has changed, it’s reasonable to change child support and parental rights laws to take into account the possibility of abortion.
Ignoring the possibility of miscarriage, you are correct if by “naturally” you mean “without intervention”. Similarly, if I am summoned to court, I will “naturally” stay at home, because in order to get to court I would have to make the overt act of driving across town.
Yet in both cases, choosing not to change the situation is equivalent to choosing to accept the current situation - the mother chooses to have a child, I hypothetically choose to commit contempt of court (failure to appear, something like that).
On the other hand, “natural consequence” implies that it is predictably going to happen, like getting bitten is a natural consequence of poking a dog with a sharp stick. Given the mother’s assurance that she does not want a child and will not carry one to term, a child is hardly a predictable consequence of her becoming pregnant.
Then we’re even. I find it offensive and disturbing that a man should be held hostage to a woman’s whims, and forced to give up his own quality of life in order to support a child that perhaps never should have been born.
That is very interesting. And your unique philosophy, to be sure. Thankfully, many people do not share your philosophy.
So, to sum it up, according to you:
[ul]
[li]There is nothing “wrong” about animal torture, and pedophilia. There is nothing “wrong” about anything. People should be able to choose to do these things, without any interference from the law.[/li]
I suppose you think Osama Bin Laden is just being “rude” then? Certainly he was not “wrong” in any way.
[li]Men do not become fathers, they help create zygotes. No man can ever make any claim on a child who has his DNA, no matter how much he wishes to, because he didn’t help bring that child into the world. Only the mother did. All he did was help create a zygote. No man should ever get child custody, unless the mother wants him to have child custody. No more deciding in court who is really the more fit parent. The mom is and always should be the default choice. There is no dad unless she says there is. [/li]
You know, I’m sure there are a lot of men and fathers (not to mention women and mothers) who would disagree with such a position. Would we all be allowed to vote on this? Do you seriously think that the majority of voters would actually vote that men have no parental rights, unless the mother decrees that they do? And if a vote was taken and a majority still wanted men to have rights to their children (and therefore, have responsibilities) wouldn’t you “unwilling father” types still be in the same position you are in now? Being forced to do something against your will, because a lot of other people voted for it to be that way?
You know, I cannot see how a majority of the voters in the USA (half of which are female) would vote that men have no responsibility for their offspring. A lot of male voters wouldn’t want to lose all claim to their children either. I do not see how such a law would ever come to be. But, if you want to believe it would (or wave your magic wand and make it so) by all means, go ahead.
[li]We should all vote on each and every law every “X” years, just to make sure everyone wants to still comply to each and every law. (Might I ask, how often is “X”? Every 1 year? Every 5 years? Wouldn’t it be terribly unfair to expect anyone to be subjected to an “unjust” law for any longer than that?) How do you propose that everyone have the time to vote for each and every law like this? Doesn’t that sound rather convoluted? How deep down in this “re-voting” for every law do you want to go? There are a lot of laws out there, you know. And frankly, I’d like to change the law about how many cats each household can have. I have a lot of cats. But, wait a minute—if the re-vote happens, and more cats are allowed, and I get a lot of cats (because it’s legal now) what happens if the cat law is overturned in a year, or 5 years? Will I have to get rid of my cats, or will I be allowed to be “grandfathered” in? Who will keep track? Who will pay for all of this extra work? How do we set up such a government department? Who will oversee it? [/li]
Sounds REALLY convoluted (not to mention expensive) to me, and frankly, I don’t see how it could work. Maybe you should wave your magic wand, and make it work, eh?
[/ul]
These are very interesting points you have made, and (IMO) very troubling. Interesting to know where you stand. Bizarre, but interesting. I guess.
And how, pray tell, does someone “fix” the mess of a pregnancy? How can he make it right? Can he relieve the symptoms of pregnancy? Can he have an abortion for her? Can he guarantee that she will experience no discomfort of any kind? There really is no real way to “make it right”, she will still have to suffer more than he will. But, by all means, let’s make it as easy and comfortable for him as possible. So what if she always has more consequences? What concern is it of yours, as long as none of that money in your pocket is removed?
Well, wave your magic wand, and make it all go away without any trauma, discomfort, difficulty, risks to health. That’s the only way a man can fix the “mess” in an “equal” way.
I am not sure that it was illegal to take some of these miscarriage-inducing herbs. And why should child support laws assume that women must or should get an abortion, and that if she doesn’t, she’s somehow been…what? “Negligent”? Abortion is legal, but it is (as others have stated here) not the default state for a woman to be in. After a zygote is started, the default and natural state is pregnancy. Abortion is not a natural thing that automatically happens, it is a surgical procedure. Why should child support laws be contingent on a women having to have a surgical procedure? Why can’t the man have a surgical procedure instead, like a vasectomy, before the fact? If he’s the one that doesn’t want kids, let him get the surgery.
But oh, wait a minute. That might be uncomfortable for him. That might be risky. He might have misgivings, concerns or fears about it. He might not want to undergo such a surgery. And, by all means, we can’t have that! Better that the woman faces that discomfort and risk, each and every time. That’s much more “fair” and “equal”, isn’t it?
yosemitebabe, while I understand where you’re coming from, don’t just assume that most people believe in moral rights and wrongs or that the counterargument can be so easily dismissed. The debate over how one should properly derive “right” and “wrong” has been ongoing for quite some time. For many of us who do not believe in a deity from which such things are derived, it has been our inevitable conclusion that “right” and “wrong” lose all meaning. Actions have consequences that can be beneficial or detrimental to various people, that’s how I might classify it.
A function of government can indeed be to outlaw certain things like child molestation and animal torture, and it need not make any moral judgment to do so. Government is merely making a decision that with certain behaviours, the detriments typically outweigh the benefits as regards the various participants, and as a result the government is going to prohibit all such activities for the sake of expediency and for upholding its part of the social contract that is government.
Someone saying he doesn’t believe that child molestation is “wrong” isn’t saying it should be tolerated or that he approves of it, he’s merely failing to assign it any moral value at all. Law does not have to base itself upon a moral framework, it can function without that.
In the example of torturing animals, who exactly is experiencing a detriment? The animal? The same kind of creature that people kill and eat? It doesn’t have “rights”, does it? If it did, people wouldn’t be allowed to kill and eat it. So who exactly is experiencing a “detriment”? No human is, other than a feeling of distress, over knowing that something that they consider “wrong” has happened.
However, if he says that he opposes laws that would prohibit it, then what will most of us assume? If he says that he thinks all humans should be allowed to make their own “choices”, even to molest children (providing the children consent, of course) or to torture animals?
This may not indicate that he thinks such behaviors are wonderful, but we cannot see a deep distress over the activities taking place, either.
How do you define “beneficial” and “detrimental”? Is an individual’s own opinion the only thing that matters, or do other people get to decide if a certain thing is beneficial or detrimental to the individual (or to society)? Who gets to decide in the long run? Whose opinion is more carries more weight or more credibility? Do we all get to take a vote? What percentage of people have to decide that something is detrimental (or beneficial) for there to be a law passed reflecting that?
You know, I keep seeing this post at the top of the page, and I want to address some of it:
I’m not concerned with whether he doesn’t want the child because he doesn’t like kids, he can’t afford them, or because he’s selfish. The end result is that he chooses to have sex while fertile, even though he could have chosen not to.
I’m not concerned with whether he doesn’t want the vasectomy because he doesn’t like surgery, he doesn’t like the idea of saving his sperm in a sperm bank (for use later), or because he’s afraid of having any sharp object near Mr. Winky. The end result is that he chooses not have a vasectomy, even though he could have had one, which would prevent him getting a woman pregnant.
If laws and policys are considered without any sense of morality, right and wrong, then it seems to me that the most powerful will have an unusual advantage. Values must form the basis of decision making, otherwise… in all things expedience. This would result in severe injustice.
It seems to me that the OP simply thinks things should be the way he wants them to be. He wouldn’t want to have to support a child, so no man should have to. Fortunately, the real world doesn’t work that way. In the real world, people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions, regardless of what someone else involved might or might not do. If you find yourself in this situation, and the woman involved decides to abort - breathe a sigh of relief and wipe the sweat off your brow. You got lucky. It was never her responsibility to absolve you of yours. Nor could she possibly have done so without actually having the abortion.
Women are the ones who get pregnant, changing the law isn’t going to fix that. Biology ain’t fair, but that’s no reason to make the law unfair.
I didn’t say anything about equality. The only way to make it truly equal would be for men to get pregnant just as often as women. Until medical science can do that, we’ll have to live with the inequalities caused by our DNA.
She’s not required to have an abortion, any more than she’s required to raise a child or give it up for adoption. The choice is hers; she’s just responsible for the consequences of her own decision.
Indeed it would. If he had gotten a vasectomy but it wasn’t done properly, and he unintentionally got a woman pregnant, I would use that as further evidence that he didn’t want children and shouldn’t be held responsible for them if the mother chooses to raise them.
But the man’s choice not to have a vasectomy is not as relevant as the woman’s choice to raise the child, because her decision takes precedence. The man doesn’t choose whether he wants to create a child; he is 50% responsible for the pregnancy, but once that point is reached, the woman alone decides whether to allow it to become a child.
Sure, if the man had gotten a vasectomy, the woman wouldn’t have become pregnant. If the radio DJ hadn’t been playing such sensual music, they never would have had sex and she wouldn’t have become pregnant; if the man’s father had gotten a vasectomy, the man wouldn’t have been born, and the woman wouldn’t have become pregnant; and so on.
We don’t hold the radio DJ or the man’s father responsible for the pregnancy because there’s another choice in between: the man’s choice to have sex with the woman. Likewise, we shouldn’t hold the man responsible for the child because there’s another choice in between: the woman’s choice to have a child.
If I hand you a baseball bat and you use it to smash my mailbox, you’re the one responsible for my broken mailbox, even though it never would have happened if I hadn’t given you the bat. The choice of what to do with it was entirely up to you.
Of course, in the real world, choosing to have a child is not the man’s action, it’s the woman’s action. She made the choice, she is responsible for it.
Or are you proposing that one should be held accountable for everything that happens as an indirect result of his decisions? You cut someone off in heavy traffic, he’s still angry when he gets to work, he yells at his boss and gets fired… are you responsible for finding him a new job?
Just to clarify here, I am the OP. I have not been supporting most of the arguments for the “male abortion” here. I popped in once and awhile to make a comment about the general nature of obligations and morality, but without much zeal. To suppose that I “simply think things should be the way I want them to be” is rather presumptious when you don’t really know from my posts how I want things to be. (It’s also a dismissive and insulting way to attack arguments, and makes the genetic fallacy of concluding that since you think you know why an argument is being make then you can dismiss the argument if the reason is bad.) I said quite clearly in my posts that I thought it would be best for government to indeed require the man to pay when the woman was of a middle or lower income bracket and could not easily support the child on her own. So in fact I stated that some men should have to pay (under law of course, not morality.)
You’re right, I wouldn’t want to support a child, but I would accept the social contract of government telling me to do so if it were necessary. I certainly would resent rather strongly having to pay even a penny if I were a Legal Aid lawyer making $30,000 a year and the mother was a partner at a tax law firm making $500,000 plus bonuses. No matter how much the mother makes, the formula would still require a contribution from me, and that’s the system I’m calling into question.
Perhaps you thought somebody else was the OP, because my comments don’t even remotely reflect what you stated.
You are certainly right about one thing. As the world stands now, every abortion a woman has equates to one VERY lucky man somewhere out there.
“Unfair”? UNFAIR?!?! You now start bleating about “unfair”, when talk strays to vasectomies? When Mr. Winky may have to go under the knife, all of a sudden you’re worried about “fair”. Give me a freakin’ break.
What is so “fair” about some of you expecting a woman to undergo an uncomfortable and risky surgical procedure? What is so “fair” about a woman having to have a procedure that is so fraught with controversy, that some of the clinics where it is performed are bombed? Some of the doctors that perform it are murdered? That the mere act of walking up to the clinic to get the procedure risks harrassment and confrontation? And that there is a well-established belief among many people that this procedure is something akin to murder? But, you are not one bit concerned about that, are you? But when it comes to Mr. Winky, all of a sudden we worry about “unfair”.
Yeah, but that still is no reason for men to NOT have a vasectomy. After all, the procedure is legal, it is not fraught with the same level of controversy as abortion, and it is usually quite effective. For a man who is adamant that he does not want children to choose not to have this simple procedure is folly, is it not?
He’s not required to have a vasectomy, any more than he’s required to raise a child or give it up for adoption. The choice is his; he’s just responsible for the consequences of his own decision.
As one poster mentioned earlier, not all abortions “take” either. If he is worried about the small chance that his vasectomy won’t “take”, let him also wear a condom, and let her use birth control. The odds of pregnancy are down to almost nothing.
If he makes the decision to have a vasectomy before he ever has sex with her, hasn’t his decision taken precidence? He decided to go into the relationship as a man who is unable to father children. The decision has been made.
Exactly.
And if the woman had an abortion, there wouldn’t be a baby. But she did not have an abortion, and he did not have a vasectomy. And so there’s a baby.
Likewise, we don’t hold the woman responsible for the child because there was another choice between—the man deciding that he didn’t want a vasectomy.
The choice to have sex as a fertile man is entirely up to you. The outcome of that choice, and the consequences of that choice are what you are now responsible for.
Of course, in the real world, choosing to have sex while fertile (and therefore risk impregnating a woman) is not the wonman’s action, it’s the man’s action. He made the choice, he is responsible for it.
Having sex while fertile is not an “indirect” decision. A man knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s having sex while fertile. He is risking getting a woman pregnant. He also knows that he doesn’t have to have sex while fertile. He does it anyway. His choice—he must be responsible for the consequences.
Correct. And just like he was rudely involved in the deaths of thousands of people, someone else can rudely be involved in his death as well. It is silly when you consider that most people do not like my choice of words simply because it does not create a powerful emotional response. The connotation of the word used to describe an action does not change what the action is. I have heard people say, “I hate broccoli.” I have also heard these exact same people say, “I hate terrorists.” So, should I conclude that their thoughts and feelings about broccoli and terrorism are equal? I believe not. Just evaluate the action on its merits not on the word I use to describe it. The terrorist acts did not stir an emotional response in me (and little does), so I would not use an emotional word to describe them. But I certainly think it is more rude to kill someone than to call them an unpleasant name.
That is why we have courts. The people cannot always be trusted to make choices with their heads instead of their hearts. Courts exist to solve that problem. Sadly, many judges think with their hearts as well.
For a man to claim he has rights over an already born child is no different from a man saying he has rights over an unborn child and therefore, the right to prevent an abortion. The woman is the one that allowed the child to suck nutrients from her for 9 months and therefore, she is the one with ALL the rights. The man’s contribution was so small as to be almost totally insignificant.
Just like a woman needs to make sure the man will support the child before she has sex with him, the man needs to make sure that the woman will allow him to help care for the child. Each person is given power over himself/herself and it is the other person’s job to verify that they both want the same things. This isn’t a men vs. women issue where I always support the man. If a thread is started where a woman is denying the male any rights because she doesn’t want him around, I will be supporting the woman 100%. It is her kid. She is the one that put all the work into it. If you borrow a dollar from someone and use that dollar to start a multi-million dollar business, all you owe the person you borrowed the dollar from is one single dollar. The fact that you put that dollar to good use does not entitle the person you borrowed it from to half of your corporation.
There are a lot of laws out there. Way, way, way too many laws, 99.9% of which should be tossed out. The amount of government interference that led to the American Revolution was nothing compared to what we have now. America was created around the intention that it would never be anything like it is now. Americans can think for themselves. If you allow that, some people will make questionable and less than ideal decisions. But that is the way life works. We all make questionable decisions every day, and for the government to arbitrarily declare that they have the right to make certain decisions for us is unacceptable. It is fine in Cuba, but not in America.
As for the number of years, 20 would be fine. In order for a law to even exist it has to not be thrown out by the courts (and most laws would be). The 20 years is just to acknowledge that even ideals change with time. Since there would be so few laws, having people vote on them would hardly be an overwhelming task. And as with all initiatives, a certain number of signatures would be required to allow a re-vote on any law even after 20 years (for if you cannot even get a very small percentage of the population to back you, the law will not be overturned when the vote takes place).
I am glad you at least find them interesting. A lot of people are not even that open-minded.
Thinking too much (especially without feeling as well) leads to a lot of interesting outcomes. When I look at the big picture, nothing seems to matter. Why is murder so horrible when everyone would be dead in 100 years or less anyway? Why does it matter if you kill all of humanity when the average life span of a species is only 1 million years? (Note: Don’t actually answer these questions as that would totally take the thread off topic. I am just explaining my thought process so it will seem less bizarre). Too much unemotional analysis has only led me to conclude that in the end nothing matters.
The laws would be contingent on the fact that the woman can have the surgical procedure, not that she has to have it. Her ability to make the final choice removes the man from the final decision making process and therefore removes his lawful responsibility.
We can. Isn’t it great when we have a system where either person can choose to be responsible and the government does not interfere one way or the other?
Fortunately, if the government does not have laws against child molestation, it probably would not have laws against murder either. Therefore, the people can make the “choice” whether the child molester’s existence continues. You went out of your way to pick certain highly controversial activities without also pointing out that the other highly controversial activities that act to counterbalance would also be legal. The people can group certain actions together. There may be a group of the most unpleasant activities, followed by a group of slightly less unpleasant activities, all the way down to things that are barely unpleasant at all. Since I know that America has no intention of having no government at all, I realize that some of these activities will always be illegal (which is why I would never even bother to defend child molesters…even I am not willing to waste that kind of time). But if even one activity in a particular group is legal, then all of the other activities in that group must also be legal. If child molestation becomes legal, then the murder of child molesters would almost assuredly become legal as well.
I am always amazed at how many people on this board do that. While some people promote the legalization of drugs because they want to use them or make money off them, others do it because they just think they should not be illegal. The points made by the two former groups are not any less valid than the points made by the latter group. Having something personal to gain may explain the reasoning behind one’s beliefs (though not always), but it certainly does not make his/her points less valid.
Well, it is lucky from some males’ points of view, but other men are horrified.
All that most of us on this side of the issue are saying is that the last step in a chain reaction is the most important one and the one that decides responsibility. Obviously not everyone believes this, which is why we have all been going back and forth on this point for 4 pages.
This is the central point that has most of the posters so polarized on the issue. Some of us think that the choice to give birth is the only direct choice there is, while others think that the choice to have sexual intercourse is also a direct choice.
Well, my eyes are starting to glaze over a bit from some of your lengthy explanations! But they are, indeed, interesting, and I thank you for sharing them. Maybe after I’ve had a good rest I can respond to some of them…
And should not the law be also contingent on the fact that the man can also have a surgical procedure that will make him not able to father children? Is not his willingness to have sex while fertile a form of consent to the risks and consequences of a possible pregnancy? He knows what he is doing, he knows he did not have to have sex while fertile. He knows that there is a viable and legitimate procedure that will make it almost impossible for him to impregnate a woman. He also knows that with sperm banks, his sperm can be stored, so he can be a father later, if he wishes. The option may not be the most attractive to him, but neither is abortion to many women.
As Mr. 2001 says, he is not concerned about whether or not a woman does not want an abortion. He figures that since she has the choice of an abortion, a man should always be “off the hook”. Even if she feels strongly that she shouldn’t have the abortion, it still doesn’t matter. He could not care less if she has moral issues, concerns, or worries about abortion. Not his problem.
So why should any woman be concerned if a man is reluctant to have a vasectomy? Why should any of us feel bad if he gets stuck paying child support for a kid he didn’t want? The option for vasectomy was open to him, and he chose not to take it. He’d never have be stuck paying for child support on a kid he didn’t want, if he’d only had a vasectomy. But he didn’t want to do that. He chose not to do that, he chose to have sex while fertile instead. So, boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river. This is the world’s smallest violin playing. His choice, he needs to live with the consequences.
Yeah, I am amazed how long some of my posts are. It sure would save a lot of time if I didn’t have so many opinions.
Because men do not get pregnant, they are not taking a natural risk. There is an unnatural risk that is imposed by the law, but not a natural one. Both take the natural risk that they may catch a disease, but only women take the risk that they will get pregnant.
You certainly are not going to hear me tell anyone to feel bad.
Where do you get that? They take the “natural” risk of impregnating a woman. They take the “natural” risk of giving a new life their DNA. If there is still the concept of “mother” and “father” in this world, they are taking the “natural” risk of being a “father”, and all the responsibilities that entails.
And, is not an abortion “unnatural”? It has risks and potential complications that some may not want to deal with. Just because it is legal does not mean that it is a neutral thing that all women will be eager to have. Should not the courts take this fact into account as well?
Pregnancy is natural. Carrying a child to term is natural. A man getting a woman pregnant when having sex is natural. Having a vasectomy is not natural. Neither is abortion.
But, since they are both legal procedures, both choices should be taken into account by the court, or neither. Why exactly should the courts take abortion into account, while simultaniously ignoring vasectomy?
I knew I should have been more clear. My use of the words “natural” and “unnatural” was to signify the difference between the types of “unfairness.” The word “unfair” has come up many times in this thread. The two main contexts that this word comes up in are “unfair” biology and “unfair” laws. Most of us agree that biology is “unfair” and that we cannot do anything about it. Some of us are arguing that the laws should not be “unfair” as well. The risk of pregnancy is part of the unfair biology, while the threat of child support is caused by unfair laws. Pregnancy is natural. Abortion is unnatural. Being forced to pay for someone else’s decision is unnatural as well.
Courts should ignore both vasectomy and hysterectomy. Forcing people to get surgery that prevents ever having children as the only way to escape parenthood is not appropriate at all. The decision to bear a child is the last decision made in the process and therefore, the most important one (in my opinion anyway).
And this entire thread seems to spin parenting as the most distasteful event one could possibly experience. It is important to keep in mind that not only do women have to put up with the discomforts of pregnancy, but they get to have children. Men do not. This is part of the unfairness of biology. As a man I will only be able to care for a child if a woman wishes me to.
I realize that men are needed to make zygotes, but their contribution is tiny. If you catch Athlete’s foot from someone and you find a way to harvest a chemical from your infection that you can sell for millions of dollars, the person that gave you the Athlete’s foot to begin with is not entitled to half of your wealth. Men may be needed to make zygotes, but women do all the work and put up with all the discomfort. And when you consider how much more uncomfortable pregnancy is than a case of Athlete’s foot, there is no comparison. When a man comes knocking on your door after 9 months of pregnancy and asks for his “fair share,” take a cotton swab and collect a cell sample from inside the baby’s mouth. Hand him the cotton swab and tell him to “get lost.” Because that is all he contributed. Men are entitled to one-half of one of the baby’s cells. When the sperm and egg unit, it is the egg that provides the nutrients needed to support cell growth. And once the egg implants, it is the mother that supplies the nutrients needed for continued growth. Since the mother supplies both of these things, she is the one that has ALL the rights. Men make one-half of one cell and that is it. It may be a very important cell (the first one), but it is still only a tiny fraction of 1% of what was needed to make the child and thus the male is entitled to only a tiny fraction of 1% of the rights. And in truth, not even that. When a man has sexual intercourse with a woman he is donating that sperm unless otherwise stated in written contract. If he considers his sperm to be so valuable, he can choose not to give it away. When I think of the arrogance it takes for a man to claim that he is entitled to equal rights after all the woman had to go through…
You can tell our laws were written by men.
(In truth, I think I am more worked up about this injustice than I am about men being forced to pay child support. I am almost becoming emotional :eek: ).
