|
Male freedom of choice? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
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. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| 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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Precisely. |
|
|
| Jansa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
OR you could NOT be a dumbass and go around ing 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 ing break. I have had this discussion with three girls I have ed. 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. |
|
|
| Jansa |
| 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. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Yikes! Too bad for all the women who give up kids for adoption. |
|
|
|
|
