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

As practical as it sounds, it's not going to get done for a lot of reasons so it's not exactly hypothetical.

You can do the preventative steps- freedom of choice to subscribe to education and contraception methods
You can do the last resort- freedom of choice to use abortion in case of accidents
You can do the damage control- freedome of choice to use social services and tax benifits in place

You can ignore the 'problem' of responsibility and lose your right to freedom of choice in so much as it's a civil law that you must accept responsibility for your actions. Just like getting a licence for driving and having to obey the speed limits, you exceed them or break those and you get stung for a few bucks. You opt out of the responsibility for your biological offspring, then you get stung for a lot of dollars...

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa 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.

The woman made the choice to have sex. Therefore, she took the chance and ought not to be able to abort. She doesn't want to carry to term, she shouldn't have sex.

Same logic.

quote:

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.

Hehe, the "terms" are an artifact of the legal system. The same argument applies to abortion wherever abortion is illegal.

quote:

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

Women shouldn't be able to "opt out" and kill a fetus just because they don't want the responsibility.

quote:

OH, and you cannot equate abortion to opting out of being a father.

No equation, but no responsibility without power to choose, either. It is a very simple legal principle, but one not being applied consistently here. The current situation is asymmetrical and illogical.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Women shouldn't be able to "opt out" and kill a fetus just because they don't want the responsibility.

If there was 100% effective birth control (short of lopping things off or abstaining) then I might agree with it, but there isn't due to a lot of reasons.

quote:

No equation, but no responsibility without power to choose, either. It is a very simple legal principle, but one not being applied consistently here. The current situation is asymmetrical and illogical.

Maybe, but we don't live in a perfect world of equal wages in some cases and the added burden of financial difficulty during the actual pregnancy with medical costs and trying to work at the same time. The support and raising of a child completely dependant on their parents while trying to work for the first 0-5 years before school and the added costs after that. Childcare isnt free...
If the state was prepared to pony up the cash for everything, then maybe, but it doesnt because then everyone would be crying about the single parents causing a huge tax hike.

Another thing is that almost everyone seems to admit that the status quo is unfair, even while continuing to support it. What I would propose instead is that in cases where the father decides to opt out, the mother should receive full financial support from the government, much more than the current "welfare" programs, if she decides to keep the child. This would both make single motherhood a plausible option for women who aren't well-off and remove the current legal asymmetry.

Then we have the screaming tax hikes from lads running around impregnating anything without any regard for how it will affect anyone.
I mean really, do you really wish to pay for other peoples errors and accidents all the time or are you able to afford the subsequent tax hikes?

This seems to be coming down to an argument from consequences, that men are just too evil and irresponsible with their reproductive abilities to be trusted with such a choice. Instructive to watch.

Not from me, I realise that theres plenty of women out there only too willing to use this kind of entrapment to obtain tax breaks, welfare and alimony as a lifestyle.
All being equal though, people are complete bastards to one another more often then they probably should be and it's not the kids fault as they dont have the freedom of choice from day 1. They should have a fair go at life though without the added hardships of being raised in poverty which is all I'm advocating.

quote:

They should have a fair go at life though without the added hardships of being raised in poverty

I agree, which is why I advocate a large increase in welfare for single mothers.

So instead of the man owning up to his decision to have sex and create a child... everyone else in the country should pay for it?

That doesn't even make sense.

We also pay for senior citizens who failed to save enough for retirement.

I think that regular checks that allow both parties to go on their merry way are far preferable to situations with bitter, dead-beat dads who hate paying support* and resent the whole thing.

* And the extraction of their money does often involve lots of government funds to pay the debt collection employees, yes? I think it is an open question which method would ultimately be cheaper.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This seems to be coming down to an argument from consequences, that men are just too evil and irresponsible with their reproductive abilities to be trusted with such a choice. Instructive to watch.

Well men do, traditionally, have this awesome way of skipping out of town and leaving the care of the children to the woman. Women were the child bearers and raisers for thousands of years. The asymmetry of the law is a reflection of the asymmetry of life. I think you are looking for a counter argument that does not actually exist within logical boundaries because the current scenario is adequate. Sure, it does not properly accommodate for all scenarios, as there are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, most women are reasonable enough to do their part and most men are reasonable enough to do their part as well.

If you suddenly gave men an opt-out, you would see a lot more single mothers around. Legally, people are bound to the law, but morally, if given the opportunity, people will opt out just because it is of greater benefit to them in the immediate term. Nobody likes responsibility - I mean, sure, people learn to like it and even love it sometimes, but people, for the most part, would choose to remain as free as possible. Consider that if the government offered an opt-out for people who did not want to pay taxes each year...would people give their money anyways because it is for the greater good of the nation or would they choose to keep their money? I think the answer is pretty obvious. If you don't bind people to their responsibilities on a legal level, the moral fabric of our society would come unbound. Most people don't want that, I don't think.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well men do, traditionally, have this awesome way of skipping out of town and leaving the care of the children to the woman.

Since we are discussing empirical conditions and consequences, it is good to note that many government employees must be paid to track down these men when they skip town. We could, instead, fire those employees and give the tax dollars that would have been their "salaries" directly to the single mother.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa So instead of the man owning up to his decision to have sex and create a child... everyone else in the country should pay for it? That doesn't even make sense.

actually it makes plenty of sense, the country decides that the male has absolutely no say regarding his potential fatherhood, hence they should take responsibility.

not that i support it, would just make for a slightly more sensible society.

If she can choose to carry it to term, and then keep it, then she can deal with the consequences of those choices on her own. You want all the freedom? Then you get all the responsibility. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa 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.

Hahaha. Give me a fucking break. I have had this discussion with three girls I have fucked. Guess what the answer was each and every time? "I do not know." And even if they would have answered that they'd abort, there is no way for me to know if she actually would. What do I do? Sign a contract with her?

It is rediculous to expect someone to know their future decisions, especially if they have no prior experience regarding the subject, and especially on a subject that serious.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles What I would propose instead is that in cases where the father decides to opt out, the mother should receive full financial support from the government, much more than the current "welfare" programs, if she decides to keep the child. This would both make single motherhood a plausible option for women who aren't well-off and remove the current legal asymmetry.

It would also lead to people having kids for the sake of money. Having a child should not become an option to better one's financial status. As much as I'd like to believe people wouldn't abuse this kind of law, I do not have that faith in humans.

quote:

Originally posted by Jansa It is rediculous to expect someone to know their future decisions, especially if they have no prior experience regarding the subject, and especially on a subject that serious.

All the more reason to keep your penis out of them.

no matter the way it is put,anyone who thinks that feeding one's own child should be optional should receive the benefits of free castration.

Yikes! Too bad for all the women who give up kids for adoption.

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak no matter the way it is put,anyone who thinks that giving birth to a child should be optional should receive the benefits of free castration.

fixed to beat the remains of a dead horse.

i guess. if she's a big fat bitch

and shes ugly

and she's stupid

and the baby looks like a whore

quote:

Originally posted by Jansa Hahaha. Give me a fucking break. I have had this discussion with three girls I have fucked. Guess what the answer was each and every time? "I do not know." And even if they would have answered that they'd abort, there is no way for me to know if she actually would. What do I do? Sign a contract with her? It is rediculous to expect someone to know their future decisions, especially if they have no prior experience regarding the subject, and especially on a subject that serious.

It certainly is NOT ridiculous. You SHOULD know. If you are going to be sexually active, you should consider the possible consequences, and prepare yourself for the time you might need to make that decision.

My boyfriend and I have discussed this, and I KNOW that if I were to get pregnant, I would have an abortion. Not a doubt in my mind. Mind you, we are taking a lot of precaution to NOT have that happen.

Fucking people are so irresponsible. They go around fucking like little rabbits with no care about what might happen, but suddenly they have a shitty situation to deal with and all hell breaks loose. If you cannot be an adult about an adult act, then get the fuck out of the bedroom.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Since we are discussing empirical conditions and consequences, it is good to note that many government employees must be paid to track down these men when they skip town. We could, instead, fire those employees and give the tax dollars that would have been their "salaries" directly to the single mother.

And who cares if the child has a father in their life, right?

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak no matter the way it is put,anyone who thinks that feeding one's own child should be optional should receive the benefits of free castration.

+1

Which is why I don't support giving up children for adoption, and am otherwise so pro-abortion.

quote:

And who cares if the child has a father in their life, right?

So now it is not just a matter of financial support, but also one of forcing the man to raise the child he did not choose to have?

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