TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Male freedom of choice?
Pages (20): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Well, that is certainly the current social consensus. Until not so long ago, it was also "life" that women were legally forced to carry children to term.

well you used to be able to legally smack the shit out of your wife, but now mine always calls the cops

1. Woman and man engage in a sexual activity that lead to pregnancy. Child plays no role other than being conceived;
   
2. Woman and man are both responsible for the child;
   
   ...
   
3. Neither the woman, nor the man, have the right to sacrifice someone not responsible for an act the aforementioned woman and men regret having done.
   

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak penis+vagina=sometimes baby=you have to pay even if its ugly and you don't want it. why?because thats life.

i guess when someone tries to kick you in the balls you don't do anything to block the kick either, "because thats life".

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i guess when someone tries to kick you in the balls you don't do anything to block the kick either, "because thats life".

i like the pain...and don't judge me you put synthetic cock in your ass

quote:

Originally posted by Lira c0re version: if a woman and a man are not planning to have children and the woman gets pregnant and decides not to abort, should the man be forced to pay child support? Yes - and, if the man decided to take care the child, the woman shall pay child support instead.

You believe, then, in holding people responsible for the choices of others?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Woman and man engage in a sexual activity that lead to pregnancy. Child plays no role other than being conceived; Woman and man are both responsible for the child; ... Neither the woman, nor the man, have the right to sacrifice someone not responsible for the act for something the aforementioned woman and men regret having done.

what's a someone? when does something becomes a someone? what determines when something becomes a someone?

I think men are obligated to the child and therefore should pay. However, if there is some kind of deception involved that's bullshit...and shouldn't be held responsible.

quote:

Originally posted by jdat rights for visitation etc... but ultimately they want their daughter to get the kids back despite the fact she is totally messed up the law in France is a bit weird. I also happen to know a lady from Brazil who lives here. She got pregnant with this guy she was in a relationship with ( no marriage ) and she broke it off ... she decided to move across the country as to get away from the grandparents... ultimately she would like to leave France and move back to Brazil with her kid ( who is 5 or so now ) but she is stuck in a legal battle that she can't leave because of the grandparents despite the fact she gets no pension or anything ( she refuses their money or money from the father ). If she leaves to go to Brazil without the grandparents authorizing it she will be pursuable for child kidnapping ... and the kid lives with her and she takes care of him 100% stupid laws

thats pretty rediculous. how stupid.

The same logic that justifies forcing the man to pay would also justify forcing the woman to keep the child rather than putting it up for adoption.

["She made the decision to screw, so she gets to support it!"]

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The same logic that justifies forcing the man to pay would also justify forcing the woman to keep the child rather than putting it up for adoption. ["She made the decision to screw, so she gets to support it!"]

if that was addressed to lira, i think it's pretty safe to say he has no problem with that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Woman and man engage in a sexual activity that lead to pregnancy. Child plays no role other than being conceived; Woman and man are both responsible for the child; ... Neither the woman, nor the man, have the right to sacrifice someone not responsible for an act the aforementioned woman and men regret having done. It's that simple. If the act was not carried out willingly by any of the parties involved, and the local government was unable to protect the violated citizen, then it's the government's responsibility to take care of the child if no one else chooses to do so. c0re version: if a woman and a man are not planning to have children and the woman gets pregnant and decides not to abort, should the man be forced to pay child support? Yes - and, if the man decided to take care the child, the woman shall pay child support instead.

but the problem, and where it gets interesting, is the diference between what happens when the man and woman want different things

if the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she gets an abortion. no child, and no debts etc

if the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, she has the child and they both have to pay, the woman directly and the man through child support

ugh and it gets reeeally complicated if the woman doesn't believe in abortion
but say she does...

if the man wants it and she doesn't, she can still get an abortion
the power's in her hands in this case. so granted she has to go through an abortion which i'd imagine isn't all fun and games, but gets off without a hitch for the most part

if the woman wants it and the man doesn't, she has the damn baby and the guy's stuck paying child support for the rest of his life.
it sucks either ways, and the negative factors for each decision are inherently different, which makes this all very difficult to evaluate

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles You believe, then, in holding people responsible for the choices of others?

I believe you misunderstood me. Except for rape, both participants willingly play a role, so they both acted according to their own will and no responsibility is, at best, shared. No responsibility can be transferred in such scenario.

The fact that the woman decides not to have an abortion is just because neither of them should to transfer their responsibility to someone else: whoever decides to ignore the consequences (be the man or the woman) is invading the child's right to choose.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T what's a someone? when does something becomes a someone? what determines when something becomes a someone?

A someone is a body that, internally, contains structures similar to ours: A foetus is a "someone", given the fact that it contains cells similar to ours, for example.

If you want to expand this to other animals, given the fact that they do have cells, there's no problem either: it's better to err on the safe side. By doing this, the chances of not immorally taking someone's freedom is substantially lower.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I believe you misunderstood me. Except for rape, both participants willingly play a role, so they both acted according to their own will and no responsibility is, at best, shared. No responsibility can be transferred in such scenario. The fact that the woman decides not to have an abortion is just because neither of them should to transfer their responsibility to someone else: whoever decides to ignore the consequences (be the man or the woman) is invading the child's right to choose.

When do you think that a "child" begins to exist? At conception?

quote:

Originally posted by mezzir but the problem, and where it gets interesting, is the diference between what happens when the man and woman want different things if the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she gets an abortion. no child, and no debts etc if the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, she has the child and they both have to pay, the woman directly and the man through child support ugh and it gets reeeally complicated if the woman doesn't believe in abortion but say she does... if the man wants it and she doesn't, she can still get an abortion the power's in her hands in this case. so granted she has to go through an abortion which i'd imagine isn't all fun and games, but gets off without a hitch for the most part if the woman wants it and the man doesn't, she has the damn baby and the guy's stuck paying child support for the rest of his life. it sucks either ways, and the negative factors for each decision are inherently different, which makes this all very difficult to evaluate

That's why I'm taking an egalitarian stance on this - this pro-choice movement towards abortion ends up being sexist, because women end up having different rights, compared to men. If a man decides to have an abortion, then there's what I'd call a corporeal fallacy (It's the woman's body), which is non-sense - it's the child's body, and the fact that it is inside her body does not mean it is hers.

If you forbid abortion, and find both parties responsible for the act, I can't see how this could be sexist and/or unfair to one particular side. Both were there during the time of conception, right?

think of sex as a joint business venture.

You invest without knowing if you will profit.

In the case that the business goes down ( pregnancy leading to the birth ) neither party can pull out and say I want my money back from the initial investement

I like jdat's analogy: simple and truthful

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles When do you think that a "child" begins to exist? At conception?

Unless there's a major event during pre-natal development, are there any other particular stages where you can pinpoint the beginning of a new life?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I believe you misunderstood me. Except for rape, both participants willingly play a role, so they both acted according to their own will and no responsibility is, at best, shared. No responsibility can be transferred in such scenario. The fact that the woman decides not to have an abortion is just because neither of them should to transfer their responsibility to someone else: whoever decides to ignore the consequences (be the man or the woman) is invading the child's right to choose. A someone is a body that, internally, contains structures similar to ours: A foetus is a "someone", given the fact that it contains cells similar to ours, for example. If you want to expand this to other animals, given the fact that they do have cells, there's no problem either: it's better to err on the safe side. By doing this, the chances of not immorally taking someone's freedom is substantially lower.

are seperate semen and ovum someones?
is a zygote a someone?
is an embryo a someone?

quote:

Originally posted by jdat In the case that the business goes down ( pregnancy leading to the birth ) neither party can pull out and say I want my money back from the initial investement

And in the current situation, once the pregnancy occurs, the woman may opt out of the "business arrangement" and the man may not.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T are seperate semen and ovum someones?

Is the sperm, or the ovum, as haploid cells, independently and structurally similar to us and/or able to spontaneously become that way?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T is a zygote a someone? is an embryo a someone?

Both are made up by diploid cells, like ours, aren't they? Don't they spontaneously become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similar to us?

A severed finger is also made up of diploid cells like our own.

That is hardly an adequate criterion by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles A severed finger is also made up of diploid cells like our own. That is hardly an adequate criterion by itself.

A severed finger (I take it you cut it off) is hardly an independent (and similar) being. Although it's got cells, there's no cellular activity whatsoever, after a brief period of time. Therefore the diploid cells in a severed finger aren't similar to ours, for they show no activity. Ploidy can't be ignored, nor can activity (otherwise you'd come to the bizarre conclusion that dead animals are, somehow, just like living animals).

quote:

Originally posted by Lira A severed finger (I take it you cut it off) is hardly an independent (and similar) being. Although it's got cells, there's no cellular activity whatsoever, after a brief period of time.

And in the case of an embryo, there would be no cellular activity after a brief period if it were not for the woman's support.

quote:

Therefore the diploid cells in a severed finger aren't similar to ours, for they show no activity.

Sure they do, until all oxygenated blood is completely stripped of oxygen. Why not hook the finger up to a machine and keep it alive?

If we are speaking of nervous activity, which is really the only relevant thing here, then early embryos have just as little as severed fingers do.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Is the sperm, or the ovum, as haploid cells, independently and structurally similar to us and/or able to spontaneously become that way? Both are made up by diploid cells, like ours, aren't they? Don't they spontaneously become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similar to us?

what MrJiveBoJingles said

oh, and btw, what's so spontaneous about it? if the mother dies, the embryo will not continue developing, will it? if the mother doesn't adjust her diet to the fact she is pregnent will the embryo continue developing as well as an embryo of a mother who does change her diet? if the mother doesn't stop smoking/drinking/etc due to her pregnancy will the embryo continue developing as well as an embryo of a mother who does stop doing those things?


edit: boo, this post became redundant by the time it was actually posted

This is just another one of those threads that reinforce that the end of the human race is upon us.When taking care of ones offspring becomes a question of subjectivity it has gone way too fucking far.All this free thought makes me wish the commies took over.That way we could still live in an era where you hate your wife but stay together and send the kids the college.Leave it to Beaver,Spousal Abuse,Housewife Drunkeness and Reefer Madness videos need to make a comeback.I wish i was Brendan Frasier in that movie where he is a total knob but in the end bangs the hot chick.(wait thats all his movies)
Vote Nader

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak This is just another one of those threads that reinforce that the end of the human race is upon us.When taking care of ones offspring becomes a question of subjectivity it has gone way too fucking far.All this free thought makes me wish the commies took over.That way we could still live in an era where you hate your wife but stay together and send the kids the college.Leave it to Beaver,Spousal Abuse,Housewife Drunkeness and Reefer Madness videos need to make a comeback.I wish i was Brendan Frasier in that movie where he is a total knob but in the end bangs the hot chick.(wait thats all his movies) Vote Nader

'commies' don't ignore logic as much as you would like them to as a general rule.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.