|
Male freedom of choice? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by all-nite-freak
is this some kind of tranny code or somethin?:p |
;) |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
removing the relevant responsibilities related to childbirth from the equation doesn't result in the automagical removal of consequence or so called price. |
You're right. You take all the price and you put it on one person. And you ensure this legally.
For as many women out there who are insane enough to take their child to term, there are as many insane males out there who are willing to fabricate a lie that they had nothing to do with it.
Leaving the trust in either side of the argument is sexist and unfair because neither side can be trusted over another. So why change it? |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| yup those breeders can be a pain in the ass sometimes:p |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
What a profound subject you've chosen to tackle. I personally know a girl who stopped taking the pill to keep her boyfriend they ended up having the child I think it was very ty of her even though he supposidly cheated on her.
I think all parents should pay for their kids. I had a massive heart to heart with my father once to put many wrongs right and he thinks he got an old girlfriend pregnant in the early 70's, his not really bothered about checking out if she actually had a kid and thinks whats in the past should remain in the past.
It's easy to say what I would do because it's not me however I potentially have a half brother or sister out there and I think it's quite on his behalf. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
You're right. You take all the price and you put it on one person. And you ensure this legally. |
childbirth isn't "all the price". |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
childbirth isn't "all the price". |
Paying to support a child for the next 18 years is. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Paying to support a child for the next 18 years is. |
if you truly believe so, you have a very shallow perception of reality. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
if you truly believe so, you have a very shallow perception of reality. |
:stongue:
It's all that can be required legally. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
:stongue:
It's all that can be required legally. |
so? law is man made, it has no absolute (and very little general) need to conform to either logic or practicality. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
so? law is man made, it has no absolute (and very little general) need to conform to either logic or practicality. |
Exactly right. Which is why the law can only require people to pay support in monetary means that are dispersed and valid only within that nation's legal tendering structure rather than require people to love or care for their children. People should love their kids, but that isn't something that can be mandated by the government - only monetary support is something that can and should be required. No, this doesn't solve all the problems, but the purpose of a government is not to fix everything - just to provide a basis of civilized enforcement and, to a lesser extent, moral requisition. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Exactly right. Which is why the law can only require people to pay support in monetary means that are dispersed and valid only within that nation's legal tendering structure rather than require people to love or care for their children. People should love their kids, but that isn't something that can be mandated by the government - only monetary support is something that can and should be required. No, this doesn't solve all the problems, but the purpose of a government is not to fix everything - just to provide a basis of civilized enforcement and, to a lesser extent, moral requisition. |
the law can only require X because it has no need to conform to logic or practicality? strange, i'd have figured the law can require absolutely anything due to that same fact. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
the law can only require X because it has no need to conform to logic or practicality? strange, i'd have figured the law can require absolutely anything due to that same fact. |
Technically, the law can require whatever lawmakers and policy-makers pass, but I am saying that no legal system out there can require people to have emotions. Currently, the law can require people to participate in a presentable manner as it sees fit or else people face the consequences, but it cannot force people to love one another.
Money is a conceptual form of exchange under jurisdiction of the very law which manipulates its value, therefore it is a tender that can be required by law, but no governing structure has a monopoly over peoples feelings for one another. A parent can legally hate their child as long as there is no abuse, but they had better support it financially. |
|
|
|
|
