Are you seriously comparing this to the struggles of black history, and implying that it’s similar to Nazism?
Seriosuly man, get some perspective.
I don’t know any more different ways to answer “Yes, it is.” I don’t know any more different ways to say “baby trumps adult” when it comes to their welfare.
You can keep asking it, and I’ll keep answering the same thing.
Could you talk me through how this process discourages unwanted pregnancies, and how it doesn’t negatively affect the child once born? Presumably discouragement must be attached to some kind of penalty, otherwise it’s not going to discourage anybody. If that’s the case, in what way does the child itself not suffer this penalty, rather than the parent(s)?
Thank you. You said it more eloquently than I did.
The world is that simple.
Make a baby, and you’re on the hook for taking care of that baby.
You make babies by fucking. Babies grow in the mommy’s tummy.
These are simple concepts.
A baby needs to be taken care of, because it is absolutely helpless. Therefore, if I don’t want to have to step over starving babies in the gutter, I need to make sure that baby is taken care of. I could do it myself. But a better way is to make the parents take care of it, and if they don’t feel like it, I’ll use the cops and the courts to make them. If they’re such horrible parents that even that doesn’t work, then yes, I’ll take care of it. But why is it unfair to ask the goddam father to take care of his kids, but fair to ask me?
I believe it should be possible for a man or a woman to have consensual sex without also having to consent to having a legal parental obligation to a potential future child. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
I do not.
A mother or father should be able to discharge their parental duties whether or not an abortion happens.
The mother should take care of the baby. If she lacks the resources to do so (and the baby is already born)… then it shouldn’t be you, since you didn’t consent to the baby. But not the biological father either, if he didn’t consent to having a baby. If there are adoptive parents willing to take the baby, they should take it. If there is a shortage of parents looking to adopt, then the state should take care of the baby.
This is an unfair and malicious statement that seems to be directed at single moms, implying that all women who choose to have a baby against the father’s will are random skanks. You could be in a loving, long-term marriage, with a partner - and still end up in the same situation.
For someone who claims to know a lot about biology, you seem a bit confused. The man didn’t make the baby, the woman did.
False. I don’t understand why you have such a hard time reconciling the fact that it is possible to have consensual sex without actually wanting to make a baby. In fact, I’m willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that in the western world most people have consensual sex - while at the same time - are not wanting to have children result from that sex. Birth control pills & condoms are VERY popular. You know why? Because people want to have sex, but do not want to have children.
The *woman *is the driver that crashes into the preschool. The man is merely a *passenger *in the same car. The man judged the female driver to be sober when he got into the car. Could the man have done a better job of assessing the woman’s sobriety? Sure. Is he legally responsible for the crash? Mostly no.
Could the man have gotten out of the car once he realized the the woman was drunk behind the wheel? Our current laws are very clear: NO!
Why does the law not allow someone to escape from a vehicle when it turns out that the driver is drunk and may potentially cause harm?
If my examples are that hard to understand, I’ll refrain from providing further examples.
My point was that “the majority is always right” is a fallacy. My point was that just because something is “socially acceptable” doesn’t make it morally or ethically right.
And that’s fine. But you ignore my 2nd question: Is there any way to solve this conflict between the rights of the child, and the rights of an unwilling parent, without actually having to sacrifice anyone’s rights?
The problem with that argument is that “the state” is the rest of us. You’re saying that if you don’t want to provide for your own child, then I should? What if I don’t want to, either? Because I don’t.
I want you, the parents (yes, I know you’re not actually in this situation - “you” is not “you” specifically) to support the child. You want me, a complete stranger to support the child. You don’t want to support the child. Neither do I. Why does your desire not to support your own child trump my desire not to support a child that has nothing to do with me?
Are you implying that: a father should not be allowed to surrender his parental obligations only if the mother is poor? If the mother makes $80,000/year - you would be okay with a father surrendering his parental obligations then?
They’re perfectly easy to understand. And finding the excesses of Nazi genocide to be even remotely equivalent to asking parents to support their own child is - sorry - laughable.
You need better examples. In this case, you have it backwards: it is socially acceptable *because *it is morally and ethically right, not the other way round.
No. First, what “rights” are you referring to? There isn’t a “right to be a deadbeat dad” that I’m aware of. No right has been sacrificed.
And secondly - I’m afraid I feel the current situation fair and equitable. So no, I do not believe there’s a way to solve this “conflict” (as you put it). I believe it is already solved in a fair manner: parents are required to support their children (absent adoption).
Because some of us would like the state to respect peoples’ rights. What those rights should be depend on who you ask. But if it means that taxes have to go up so that people’s rights are respected, then that’s the price to pay to live in a society that provides you with rights.
Personally, I believe those rights should be extended to parents who wish to surrender their paternal obligations.
That’s not what he said. That’s so not what he said.
But you’re inventing rights. This right does not exist. You’re asking us to respect a non-existent right.
And I for one do not think this right should be created.
I happen to not disagree. It just applies to more adults than anyone seems to care about in this thread.
This is [one of many reasons] why I support a strong social welfare system, and part of that includes paying women who are having children for the first N children where N is open for evaluation and discussion (but should be 2 for rough replacement rates). Because we all want to have sex, we all have an interest in helping those who are pregnant, there being this unfortunate relationship between the two.
It irritates me a lot that there are deadbeat dads, being the son of one. It irritates me more the amount of money we pay to chase down deadbeat dads to squeeze the last drop from them and consider this just and right when I see no relationship between rightness and justice and this law.
Apparently they’re not that easy to understand, even after explicit and direct clarification. Nowhere did I compare the “excesses of Nazi genocide” to “asking parents to support their own child” - that’s absurd. You are putting words in my mouth. Please read the post I was responding to, my own response, and the clarification of my response.
My argument is that it is morally and ethically WRONG. The counter-argument provided was “tough shit, majority rules!”. I was merely pointing out that that’s not a valid argument.
If you have an issue with my difficult-to-understand analogies, then please disregard them, and I shall refrain from their use in the future.
A mother has a right to not be forced into bearing an unwanted child. A father should also have a right to not be forced into bearing an unwanted child.
At this present time, the law effectively gives this right to the mother. It also gives this right to the mother and father together. But the law does not give this right to the man alone. I believe that this is unethical and unjust. A person should have a right to not have a child brought into the world - for whom they will be responsible for - against their will. This right should be extended to fathers.
No, you cleverly avoided it by stating you didn’t want to Godwin the thread. Which is pretty much Godwinning the thread.
I know what your argument is (well, I say “argument” but it’s more just a “desire” or a statement).
Mine is that it is morally and ethically RIGHT.
You can keep repeating it over and over, but I’m still going to completely disagree with you. Even if you repeat it another thousand times.
And I don’t. Was I not clear?
This right effectively exists already. Just not for fathers. To me, that’s a bit discriminatory.
Fathers also have the right not to be forced to carry a child to term in their bodies.
I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree.
I think it’s discriminatory that men do not have the right to be pregnant. /python
I believe it should be possible to turn lead into gold and for everybody to live in peace and harmony in houses made of pure gold.
What you believe (fantasy) and what is practical, legal, and effective (reality) are two entirely different things.
Just because something should be possible doesn’t mean it actually is possible or even practical.
Driving my car should be a safe and uneventful action. But I accept the small risk that a random mechanical failure or the actions of another driver (or even my own actions) could lead to the injury or death of other people or myself.
That’s why we force drivers (in the US, at least) to have insurance - so that in the event that something happens, as many of the costs as possible can be placed on the responsible parties, whether or not they deliberately created the accident. Why is it so hard to accept that similar measures might just have to be the case if the result of sex is an unexpected baby?
How many times does the same point have to be repeated?