|
Male freedom of choice? (pg. 28)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
If we assume that the person most directly responsible for an outcome should bear the burden of that outcome, then without a doubt it is on the woman should she choose to go to term against the wishes of the man.
It is true that the man chooses to provide a necessary step in the chain of causality leading to the outcome of a child when he chooses to engage in intercourse - but this decision is not sufficient to produce a child, since pregnancy may not result and even if it did, the pregnancy could be terminated thereafter. The only decision that is sufficient is when the woman decides to willingly carry the child to term.
It's certainly true that the man has more direct responsibility for the outcome than, say, the individual who introduced our hypothetical parents, or the bartender who might have served someone one too many drinks. But, like those individuals, while his decision may have been a necessary step without which the outcome would never have occurred, it was certainly not a sufficient one.
Consequently, it strikes me as complex cause fallacy to point at the man's decision to engage in intercourse as the causal factor by which responsibility for the child ought to be distributed. Since the woman's decision not to abort is the most direct cause of the child, it stands to reason that the woman is responsible for the child, and therefore should be willing to bear responsibility for her decision (to not abort) if that is what she wishes to do. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
frenchie was actually agreeing with you there lol |
as much as i love having my ego stroked... in this context, it wasn't such a spetacular point. :p |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If we assume that the person most directly responsible for an outcome should bear the burden of that outcome, then without a doubt it is on the woman should she choose to go to term against the wishes of the man.
It is true that the man chooses to provide a necessary step in the chain of causality leading to the outcome of a child when he chooses to engage in intercourse - but this decision is not sufficient to produce a child, since pregnancy may not result and even if it did, the pregnancy could be terminated thereafter. The only decision that is sufficient is when the woman decides to willingly carry the child to term.
It's certainly true that the man has more direct responsibility for the outcome than, say, the individual who introduced our hypothetical parents, or the bartender who might have served someone one too many drinks. But, like those individuals, while his decision may have been a necessary step without which the outcome would never have occurred, it was certainly not a sufficient one.
Consequently, it strikes me as complex cause fallacy to point at the man's decision to engage in intercourse as the causal factor by which responsibility for the child ought to be distributed. Since the woman's decision not to abort is the most direct cause of the child, it stands to reason that the woman is responsible for the child, and therefore should be willing to bear responsibility for her decision (to not abort) if that is what she wishes to do. |
yet another good point. this has been a fascinating conversation so far.. |
|
|
| Frenchie |
See both sides are running into one another coming to the same conclusion. Adoption is opting out, and a man not wanting to pay for the child IS opting out.
It's not winnable, you just have it agree to disagree with both sides not being correct to the other party. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If we assume that the person most directly responsible for an outcome should bear the burden of that outcome, then without a doubt it is on the woman should she choose to go to term against the wishes of the man.
It is true that the man chooses to provide a necessary step in the chain of causality leading to the outcome of a child when he chooses to engage in intercourse - but this decision is not sufficient to produce a child, since pregnancy may not result and even if it did, the pregnancy could be terminated thereafter. The only decision that is sufficient is when the woman decides to willingly carry the child to term.
It's certainly true that the man has more direct responsibility for the outcome than, say, the individual who introduced our hypothetical parents, or the bartender who might have served someone one too many drinks. But, like those individuals, while his decision may have been a necessary step without which the outcome would never have occurred, it was certainly not a sufficient one.
Consequently, it strikes me as complex cause fallacy to point at the man's decision to engage in intercourse as the causal factor by which responsibility for the child ought to be distributed. Since the woman's decision not to abort is the most direct cause of the child, it stands to reason that the woman is responsible for the child, and therefore should be willing to bear responsibility for her decision (to not abort) if that is what she wishes to do. |
Umm. Yeah. I agree with this guy. But that's not to say the male shouldn't help out. You up (no pun intended), it's your responsibility to accept it. |
|
|
| Aristronica |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frenchie
party. |
did someone say party!? |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aristronica
did someone say party!? |
wwwwhhhoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
edit: that's my party cry. impressive eh? |
|
|
| Frenchie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aristronica
Oh, no sorry I misunderstood you. |
That's right:whip: LOL |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
but you can use that same exact argument to disprove your point. a woman "already made her decision" that she is "ok with this by having sex." sex = possibility of pregnancy as you said. if you don't want to get pregnant.. if you are "unable to accept reality", keep your pants on. for the sake of all humanity. same analogy.
it's like you're implying that a guy should be abstinent if he doesn't want to risk unplanned pregnancy, but it's ok for a girl to whenever she wants because she can always get an abortion. that's ed up. |
Yes....
sex = possibility of pregnancy
By having sex, a woman agrees to this fact, as does a man.
However, being that it is her body, she has the choice not to support the pregnancy with her entity by having an abortion.
If you want to argue abortion, there is an abortion thread. I don't wish to argue it here.
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
how about guys who donate to spermbanks, should they be held responsible as fathers? :wtf:
if only i could turn back time...
fact - women = practically slaves.
fact - being a woman = accepting those terms.
if you are unable to accept reality (back then), then you should commit suicide. |
I find it pretty offensive that you would even compare this. There is nothing to even argue, as the two are not of the same grounds to be compared. |
|
|
| distant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frenchie
It's not winnable, you just have it agree to disagree with both sides not being correct to the other party. |
The opposition has been throwing the same "that's life" argument at us since the beginning of this thread, which has absolutely no logic to it. I think that proves that we have indeed won. |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
If you want to argue abortion, there is an abortion thread. I don't wish to argue it here. |
yeah the abortion thread got both of us nowhere last time as i recall. i'm willing to drop it. |
|
|
| distant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
However, being that it is her body, she has the choice not to support the pregnancy with her entity by having an abortion.
|
And to re-iterate Arbiter's point, the woman has the choice (you're actually admitting this) and thus the ultimate responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
