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 Psy-T this contradicts your last reply to me in which you've affirmed (via a rhetorical question) that regardless of the circumstances, the parents must provide their child with food.

Erm... my reply was:

quote:

quote: Originally posted by Psy-T so our parents owe it to us to provide us with food no matter the circumstances? quote: Originally posted by Lira Well, they were quite aware of the fact that we're a consequence of a choice of theirs, aren't they?

The topic here is pre-natal development. We haven't extended this discussion to post-birth scenarios, so this reductio ad absurdum you used makes no sense as it ignores the context and takes my question itself as being context-free.

Before birth, our parents owe it to us to provide us with food no matter the circumstances (although they might fail to find food for their own survival, which might happen against their will).

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak yet you should always accept responsibility when it is due.

Totally. So the woman should accept her responsibility for having sex and abortion should be banned.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Erm... my reply was: The topic here is pre-natal development. We haven't extended this discussion to post-birth scenarios, so this reductio ad absurdum you used makes no sense as it ignores the context and takes my question itself as being context-free. Before birth, our parents owe it to us to provide us with food no matter the circumstances (although they might fail to find food for their own survival, which might happen against their will).

only before birth? i suppose you're answer is negative, in which case, i must ask - until when do they owe it to us?

p.s. as for the claim i took your words outside context as we were discussing pre-natal development exclusively - that's incorrect, since we have used the word child as well, and i'm willing to bet you don't believe responsibility ends at birth.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T only before birth? i suppose you're answer is negative, in which case, i must ask - until when do they owe it to us?

Until we're able to do independently what they've been helping us with (e.g. they should provide food to a child that can't yet get food on his/her own).

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Totally. So the woman should accept her responsibility for having sex and abortion should be banned.

I think that a lot of the abortion argument is based on whether a woman should have a right to choose or to be stuck with the consequence of her actions, but is also a fight to define the word responsibility. Taking responsibility, to me, does not necessarily equate to having the child, but instead refers to exercising a degree of choice in the matter - responsibility is conscious decision-making, not hard-locked traditional guidelines.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Until we're able to do independently what they've been helping us with (e.g. they should provide food to a child that can't yet get food on his/her own).

how about a child (or teenager) that refuses to forage for himself out of resentment for example?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Taking responsibility, to me, does not necessarily equate to having the child, but instead refers to exercising a degree of choice in the matter - responsibility is conscious decision-making, not hard-locked traditional guidelines.

The man and the woman both have a choice whether to have sex. Equality there.

The woman has the choice whether to carry the child to term. The man has the choice to -- ?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Totally. So the woman should accept her responsibility for having sex and abortion should be banned.

i can see your logic but the debate still walks the tight rope.There are just too many variables.I for one am not a fan of abortion, yet would not deny the right.I do abhor when it is used as methodical birth control.At the same time in some circumstances it probably serves a greater purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T how about a child (or teenager) that refuses to forage for himself out of resentment for example?

beat your kids until they learn.Hippies ruined that for us

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T how about a child (or teenager) that refuses to forage for himself out of resentment for example?

Then that's probably up to the child or teenager. If the child/teenager decides to commit suicide by fasting (in)directly (which is what you seem to be arguing here), then, well, it's his/her life.

Were you thinking of something else?

Legally.....if he doesn't put his name on the birth certificate...he doesn't have to pay. Simple as that!!

Legally, if i hurt someone on my property tresspassing with intent to rob i could be held liable

fuck government law, this should be applied under human law ie: rules that seperate men from children who can produce sperm.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Then that's probably up to the child or teenager. If the child/teenager decides to commit suicide by fasting (in)directly (which is what you seem to be arguing here), then, well, it's his/her life. Were you thinking of something else?

you created him and had enormous influence on his behavioural patterns yet you're not responsible for his physical and mental well-being?


why is it that you are more responsible for him prior to his development of consciousness than after it?

personally i would looooove to say men should have a right of refusal of some sort but sadly some backwoods prick somwhere would exploit that. fuck why cant people just stop being pricks anyways what if a man was raped by a chick would he still have to pay support then? or what if he could prove she was like a twisted golddigger having kids just for the support?personally if i was responcible for some god awfull creation... whell then it depends who the mother was if i hated that person im not paying for somthing thats half hers anyways. christ!

quote:

Originally posted by lamp personally i would looooove to say men should have a right of refusal of some sort but sadly some backwoods prick somwhere would exploit that. fuck why cant people just stop being pricks anyways what if a man was raped by a chick would he still have to pay support then? or what if he could prove she was like a twisted golddigger having kids just for the support?personally if i was responcible for some god awfull creation... whell then it depends who the mother was if i hated that person im not paying for somthing thats half hers anyways. christ!

now i love lamp

"What's best in the child's interests"

And is it in the child's best interests to have a parent who did not want this to happen? It is in the child's best interests to have unloving, unhappy parents? No, the child should have parents who are eager to take care of him/her.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you created him and had enormous influence on his behavioural patterns yet you're not responsible for his physical and mental well-being? why is it that you are more responsible for him prior to his development of consciousness than after it?

It's not a matter of consciousness, but choice. Once there's consciousness, there has got to be some freedom of choice. After all, once the child/teenager develops consciousness, what are you to do? Can you protect one from oneself? Your responsibility ends when the person acquires the capacity of being responsible for him/herself.

Obviously, you might want to help the person as much as you'd help a friend, but that's not because you're a parent, but because you're emotionally attached.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It's not a matter of consciousness, but choice. Once there's consciousness, there has got to be some freedom of choice. After all, once the child/teenager develops consciousness, what are you to do? Can you protect one from oneself? Your responsibility ends when the person acquires the capacity of being responsible for him/herself. Obviously, you might want to help the person as much as you'd help a friend, but that's not because you're a parent, but because you're emotionally attached.

late term abortion it is then, just abuse the kid as much as you legally can, and if you do it right, you're home-free! (obviously, i'm pushing to extremes here)

anyways, i wanna take this in another direction now:
does artificial intelligence have a right to life, if your answer is not absolute, in what circumstances does it have the right and in what circumstances doesn't it have the right?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The man and the woman both have a choice whether to have sex. Equality there. The woman has the choice whether to carry the child to term. The man has the choice to -- ?

Change his name and move to Canada?

Really, I wasn't even going to get into who has the responsibility - just contesting the definition people seem to have when it comes to 'taking responsibility'.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd "What's best in the child's interests" And is it in the child's best interests to have a parent who did not want this to happen? It is in the child's best interests to have unloving, unhappy parents? No, the child should have parents who are eager to take care of him/her.

Yeah, not talking emotional support though. Children need money to survive - they need providers. Of course kids need loving parents to look up to as well, but when it comes to legal responsibilities, I think that both parents should be forced to pay money to support their child. The law isn't there to make people love their kids.

Even if the choice to abort comes to the female's decision...guys should know women a little better before they have sex. Women should know better as well. If guys would make sure to not fuck crazy women, they'd be fine.

Cost of raising a kid to the age of about 18 where I live is about $450,000 all up, which is the medical, food, schooling and other incidental costs along the way.
Thats with the basics and public schools.
Add in private schools and university until the age of around 21 and its going to be close to the million mark in the local peso's.

So, if theres the nice way which is you want to do the best for your biological offspring, youre going to have to foot some of this bill.
Or there is the hard way, which is having my lawyers take you to court and be subjected to the system. Which will ream you for your share on a weekly basis for the next 18 years and if you dont want to pay, then theyre going to send the sheriff and a couple of debt collectors around to take your stuff.
Essentially this kind of thing comes about because people have been proven time and time again to lack the responsibility for their own actions and it leads to neglect, possibly not because of the single parents fault, but simply the costs of raising them far exceed the single parents income.

It's not about men/women responsibility, sometimes accidents happen and its not about the freedom of choice either.
But reducing the risk of a child being raised in poverty and neglect.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It's not about men/women responsibility, sometimes accidents happen and its not about the freedom of choice either. But reducing the risk of a child being raised in poverty and neglect.

Where should we draw the line at measures taken to reducing this sort of thing? We could always sterilize the poor.

So far there have been no convincing arguments against the initial point that there is a fundamental and illogical asymmetry in the way this is handled by the legal system.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd "What's best in the child's interests" And is it in the child's best interests to have a parent who did not want this to happen? It is in the child's best interests to have unloving, unhappy parents? No, the child should have parents who are eager to take care of him/her.

if unable to play a part in the child's development, it still should be assumed that one would help financially.It should not be an afterthought.Support exists on many levels.

quote:

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

That is the most ridiculous quote.

The choice was made by both the man and the woman to have sex. We all know sex = possible pregnancy. Therefore, the man made the concious decision to take that chance.

This is how I see it.

As much as this is unfair, the fact is this:

When a woman gets pregnant, it is in her hands to decide what happens subsequently. By having sex, you are thereby consenting to these terms in the event something like that were to happen. If you don't like these terms, then don't have sex.

OR you could NOT be a dumbass and go around fucking random chicks and not knowing whether these chicks WOULD want to keep the kid or not. You should be talking to your partner about what she would do if that were to happen, and if she would want to have the kid... don't have sex with her.

This whole "opting out" shit is stupid. You cannot "opt out" on being a father. That is such a pussy assholish thing to do.

OH, and you cannot equate abortion to opting out of being a father. Abortion is the choice to stop the growth of a group of cells within your body... the woman is not a mother yet, so she is not bailing on her responsibility. Opting out of supporting a baby is being a dead beat dad.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles So far there have been no convincing arguments against the initial point that there is a fundamental and illogical asymmetry in the way this is handled by the legal system.

the world can't always break down in nerd friendly format

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