|
Male freedom of choice? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| all-nite-freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
so our parents owe it to us to provide us with food no matter the circumstances? |
until its time to fend for itself yes.
-in a poor country i would steal for my kids
-if my kids life were in danger, i would kill to protect them
-everything i have would be for my children
we might live in a modern society, but this basic cerebral human function can not fly out of the window.Psy-T is it wrong to nurture what you bring into this world, regardless of both parents being together?Where you a product of a wonderful nuclear family?As someone who had to strugle and help take care of my family due to lacking parental involvent I know all to well the consequences.I was one of the lucky ones who got straightened out by learning the hard way.Why must so many kids today learn the same way?If you take care of your kids no matter what the example you will live a beter life for it,be rewarded for it, and make living in this piece of earth a tad more bearable.What could be wrong with that.I guess its better to offer children an opportunity to be exploited. man seriously thesed pills are great:p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
All cells can do this. If provided with nutrified and oxygenated blood and a certain amount of electricity, a finger would do this on the cellular level. |
Wait, how would it expel waste products? What's purifying the blood with waste products? How is it "breathing"?
edit: Hell, this kind of debate is extremely time consuming :( |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
As much as I am opposed to government involvement in enforcing morality upon people, I think that the child's best interest should always be kept in mind, rather than that of the parent(s).
To me, people should support their children - they should be forced to do so in all aspects. In fact, this is probably the only topic out there I am such a fascist about is kids. There's a lot of ed up people out there and most of them reproduce somewhere along the line, but it was never the choice of the child to be made, so their best interest should be seen to rather than that of the parents (even though it is in everyone's best interest to please both parties).
That being said, I think that males should be forced to pay child support. Not all of them want children, sure, but really - they should have thought about that before they had sex.
I understand that times have changed and that the tradition of it being a woman's decision is quite sexist, but I do not understand how else it could be enforced save for Government involvement in the situation (which I am strongly opposed to). By the time any legal enforcement could be issued, the child would be out and alive anyways. :stongue:
I think it's just one of those unfortunate injustices (at times) that people will just have to live with. I guess some people are pissed at it in their situation, but hey - there's some laws that piss me off, too. Like public nudity laws - why can't I walk around naked? What is so wrong with that? It pisses me off that it is illegal for me to be naked in public. However, I would not like to see this law which prevents me from being nude in public removed, as it would mean that it is ok for everybody to be naked in public. I live in America. Have you seen the people in America? We just can't have that. Same concept - what is ok in some situations is not ok in all situations - but the best interest of the child should be kept in mind rather than that of selfish individuals who are afraid to face the choices they have made. |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| If you knew how many times a man refuses to pay ing child support, and when an agent makes a field visit for an interview pre court the find 52" flat screens and nice cars.Thats more important i guess.Its okay because he wanted an abortion.Serioulsly if i could line all those ******s up and belt them one by one i would have no need for anti depressants:P |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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 inference is that on your parents' death beds you'd still expect them to provide substinence for you, as well as for the rest of your life despite the fact that they won't even be around. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I understand that times have changed and that the tradition of it being a woman's decision is quite sexist, but I do not understand how else it could be enforced save for Government involvement in the situation (which I am strongly opposed to). |
The current legal consensus is a "government involvement in the situation," namely forcing all biological fathers to pay child support, simpliciter. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by all-nite-freak
If you knew how many times a man refuses to pay ing child support, and when an agent makes a field visit for an interview pre court the find 52" flat screens and nice cars.Thats more important i guess.Its okay because he wanted an abortion. |
"All those sluts who get abortions; they're refusing to take responsibility when they should have just closed their legs in the first place!"
Same logic. |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The current legal consensus is a "government involvement in the situation," namely forcing all biological fathers to pay child support, simpliciter. |
and the government should enforece it...the cost of forcing a parent to pay is much less than paying for jail terms. it all unwanted meth babies should be made to join the army at 7 and dispatched across the world until all the world's oil is in American hands.I've always wanted an escalade:tongue3 |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The current legal consensus is a "government involvement in the situation," namely forcing all biological fathers to pay child support, simpliciter. |
Nono, I meant government decision whether to have the child or not. As in the government assesses the social and economic situations of both parents and approves of the pregnancy or requires an abortion based on statistical consensus which could be derived from a great number of variables. Sorry I didn't make this more clear.
edit: I know this idea seems kind of out there, but I can see it easily being adopted in the near future. I think that China has a somewhat-related system where only 2 children are allowed per household? Similar concept, except perhaps things would be done more...eugenically. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
the inference is that on your parents' death beds you'd still expect them to provide substinence for you, as well as for the rest of your life despite the fact that they won't even be around. |
No, this inference does not exist.
If a mother abandons a helpless child/zygote/foetus, it can't live on its own, so the parents need to help.
But, by the time the child is able to do this kind of things independently, you can't say that the inference still exists. It doesn't need the parents to live by then. |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
"All those sluts who get abortions; they're refusing to take responsibility when they should have just closed their legs in the first place!"
Same logic. |
Once again.
I've gotten someone pregnant before.
They had an abortion.That "sluts" legs were opened by me.Hence whatever comes out of them is partly my responsibility.
I had sex without protection.
Infected Mushroom is now my fav group.
I have to wait out no sex
My fault, my responsibility to stay celibate.
By your logic you could almost say i could sleep with and affect others simply because i did not choose to be given it. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
No, this inference does not exist.
If a mother abandons a helpless child/zygote/foetus, it can't live on its own, so the parents need to help.
But, by the time the child is able to do this kind of things independently, you can't say that the inference still exists. It doesn't need the parents to live by then. |
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. |
|
|
|
|
