djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 9:38:35 GMT -5
women with autistic children were accused of not loving them. yet another example of blaming women for stuff that is not their fault. Source? Temple Grandin
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 9:41:17 GMT -5
Well, my apologies for saddening you with my backsliding into presumptuousness by critiquing Archie's literalism. I'm assuming your "sad AND annoyed" comment is because the critique actually saddened and annoyed you, but at this point I have no idea whether my taking the comment seriously is another sure sign of trouble for us, and I'm this close to giving up caring. post 771 didn't mention Archie, so i assume it was directed to me. was it not?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 14:39:42 GMT -5
Well, my apologies for saddening you with my backsliding into presumptuousness by critiquing Archie's literalism. I'm assuming your "sad AND annoyed" comment is because the critique actually saddened and annoyed you, but at this point I have no idea whether my taking the comment seriously is another sure sign of trouble for us, and I'm this close to giving up caring. post 771 didn't mention Archie, so i assume it was directed to me. was it not? Yes. Everything after your Reply #768 is directed at you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 14:40:31 GMT -5
post 771 didn't mention Archie, so i assume it was directed to me. was it not? Yes. Everything after your Reply #768 is directed at you. ok. nothing before 771 bothered me. i was having an excellent time, actually.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 14:44:37 GMT -5
Her Wikipedia article says nothing about it. Is this a quote? Part of the docudrama made about her? Part of her TED talk?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 14:50:43 GMT -5
Her Wikipedia article says nothing about it. Is this a quote? Part of the docudrama made about her? Part of her TED talk? all three, i think. i have seen all three, so i am not sure which i remember it from. Temple doesn't talk about her mom that much, except to say that she felt her mom did a good job raising her. this would be her mother's account of things, which probably was most clearly stated in the docudrama. i researched it a little bit after i saw the film and found that this was a common "diagnosis" of autism prior to 1960: that the mother was accused of neglecting the child at some critical juncture of infancy. that "diagnosis" had no basis in fact, as it turns out.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 14:56:18 GMT -5
Her Wikipedia article says nothing about it. Is this a quote? Part of the docudrama made about her? Part of her TED talk? all three, i think. i have seen all three, so i am not sure which i remember it from. Temple doesn't talk about her mom that much, except to say that she felt her mom did a good job raising her. this would be her mother's account of things, which probably was most clearly stated in the docudrama. i researched it a little bit after i saw the film and found that this was a common "diagnosis" of autism prior to 1960: that the mother was accused of neglecting the child at some critical juncture of infancy. that "diagnosis" had no basis in fact, as it turns out. You're saying the medical authorities were the ones making the accusations then? That makes more sense. Neuroscience has a storied history of quackiness and pet theories. Some the stuff I'm seeing in journals today I'd bet good money is going to be de-quacked 30 years from now, but I can only speculate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 14:58:18 GMT -5
all three, i think. i have seen all three, so i am not sure which i remember it from. Temple doesn't talk about her mom that much, except to say that she felt her mom did a good job raising her. this would be her mother's account of things, which probably was most clearly stated in the docudrama. i researched it a little bit after i saw the film and found that this was a common "diagnosis" of autism prior to 1960: that the mother was accused of neglecting the child at some critical juncture of infancy. that "diagnosis" had no basis in fact, as it turns out. You're saying the medical authorities were the ones making the accusations then? yes- psychiatrists, i think. going off memory there.That makes more sense. Neuroscience has a storied history of quackiness and pet theories. Some the stuff I'm seeing in journals today I'd bet good money is going to be de-quacked 30 years from now, but I can only speculate. yeah, Chomsky says the same thing about linguistics: "if anyone had not already dismissed my theories in 50 years, i would consider the field dead".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 15:08:27 GMT -5
An analogy----- Make believe two people decided to blow up something, suicide bomber style. They talk over the phone to figure out how to make the bomb. They both gather up materials. They meet somewhere between their home cities. After they meet and make the bomb, the suicide guy leaves. From that point on he has the ability to either carry out the suicide bombing mission or not. If he aborts the mission, neither one is responsible for a bombing. If he carries out the mission, both are responsible. The thing that makes both responsible is the act that put things into motion. The second guy does not get a free pass after setting things in motion, because at some point he could not stop things. This analogy assumes the second person does not know the particular building to be bombed and therefore cannot tell the police enough facts to stop the act. I think it is the same with pregnancy. Both people put the possible birth of the child into motion. At some point only one of the two can stop things. Still both are responsible. Not a perfect analogy, but I like analogies.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 15:40:25 GMT -5
An analogy----- Make believe two people decided to blow up something, suicide bomber style. They talk over the phone to figure out how to make the bomb. They both gather up materials. They meet somewhere between their home cities. After they meet and make the bomb, the suicide guy leaves. From that point on he has the ability to either carry out the suicide bombing mission or not. If he aborts the mission, neither one is responsible for a bombing. If he carries out the mission, both are responsible. The thing that makes both responsible is the act that put things into motion. The second guy does not get a free pass after setting things in motion, because at some point he could not stop things. This analogy assumes the second person does not know the particular building to be bombed and therefore cannot tell the police enough facts to stop the act. I think it is the same with pregnancy. Both people put the possible birth of the child into motion. At some point only one of the two can stop things. Still both are responsible. Not a perfect analogy, but I like analogies. It's an interesting way to look at the issue, but there are major problems with the analogy. Firstly, even the act of building a bomb is illegal, hence if the FBI were to kick down the door a second after the bomb was complete (or even before that in some cases, if they believe materials "will likely be" used to make a bomb; look up "civil asset forfeiture") the bomb makers would be in for it. There's no "opt out" period in the first place, for either conspirator. They're both 100% responsible as soon as it's complete. The chief bomb-maker isn't given a grace period where he's suddenly off the hook if he decides not to detonate the bomb. The analogy also breaks down in that there's no issue of "equality" anywhere. "Equality" under the law is all about protecting certain classes of people at the expense of society's better judgment. There's no classes to speak of here. If there were classes, such as two bomb-makers being caught with a bomb five months after its construction, one being given leniency because he was Christian and still inside the 9-month "didn't actually use the bomb" grace period, and the other being granted no leniency due to his Islamic background, you can bet that the ACLU, SPLC, et al. would be crapping a kitten (if you'll pardon the expression).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 15:48:13 GMT -5
As an aside: I'm surprised that in all these years DJ has never started a thread on civil asset forfeiture. It's such a blatant defilement of civil rights, it just screams "raging DJ thread", but he's never broached the subject as far as I'm aware. What's up with that, djAdvocate? Are you getting tired in your old age?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 15:53:31 GMT -5
The idea that we need to strive for equality is wrong. It tosses out freedoms for a worthless daydream. if we all have the same freedoms, we can go however far they take us. No one is owed anything from someone else to make them equal. Children are owed support from parents, but that is because parents brought them into the world. It is worse then dumb to think some gay couple is owed a cake. It is ridiculous to try and say men and women are equal in bringing a child into the world. Biology makes the whole thing unequal.
There will never be equality. We are all equal in the eye of our Creator, but not equal in anything else. You are smarter then many, how to equalize that? Archie is smarter then you, how to equalize that? I had a crappy childhood, how to equalize that? Some gay couple forced a baker to make him a cake, I think they are scum bags and hope bad for them, how to equalize that?
Protect the God given rights, (negative rights) and go on. Forget pushing equality, it is a negative.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 16:05:01 GMT -5
An analogy----- Make believe two people decided to blow up something, suicide bomber style. They talk over the phone to figure out how to make the bomb. They both gather up materials. They meet somewhere between their home cities. After they meet and make the bomb, the suicide guy leaves. From that point on he has the ability to either carry out the suicide bombing mission or not. If he aborts the mission, neither one is responsible for a bombing. If he carries out the mission, both are responsible. The thing that makes both responsible is the act that put things into motion. The second guy does not get a free pass after setting things in motion, because at some point he could not stop things. This analogy assumes the second person does not know the particular building to be bombed and therefore cannot tell the police enough facts to stop the act. I think it is the same with pregnancy. Both people put the possible birth of the child into motion. At some point only one of the two can stop things. Still both are responsible. Not a perfect analogy, but I like analogies. It's an interesting way to look at the issue, but there are major problems with the analogy. Firstly, even the act of building a bomb is illegal, hence if the FBI were to kick down the door a second after the bomb was complete (or even before that in some cases, if they believe materials "will likely be" used to make a bomb; look up "civil asset forfeiture") the bomb makers would be in for it. There's no "opt out" period in the first place, for either conspirator. They're both 100% responsible as soon as it's complete. The chief bomb-maker isn't given a grace period where he's suddenly off the hook if he decides not to detonate the bomb. The analogy also breaks down in that there's no issue of "equality" anywhere. "Equality" under the law is all about protecting certain classes of people at the expense of society's better judgment. There's no classes to speak of here. If there were classes, such as two bomb-makers being caught with a bomb five months after its construction, one being given leniency because he was Christian and still inside the 9-month "didn't actually use the bomb" grace period, and the other being granted no leniency due to his Islamic background, you can bet that the ACLU, SPLC, et al. would be crapping a kitten (if you'll pardon the expression). where it is a perfect analogy is---- both people put things into motion initially, at some point in time one gets to make a choice to continue or not, while the other cannot make that choice, and in the end both either do or do not end up with responsibility. There is a direct line between conception, fetus and baby. Unless something breaks the line conception means baby. So conception is where the possibility of responsibility begins. Hoping the line breaks somewhere is fair enough, but if it doesn't then the responsibility is there.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 16:07:44 GMT -5
The idea that we need to strive for equality is wrong. It tosses out freedoms for a worthless daydream. if we all have the same freedoms, we can go however far they take us. No one is owed anything from someone else to make them equal. Children are owed support from parents, but that is because parents brought them into the world. It is worse then dumb to think some gay couple is owed a cake. It is ridiculous to try and say men and women are equal in bringing a child into the world. Biology makes the whole thing unequal. There will never be equality. We are all equal in the eye of our Creator, but not equal in anything else. You are smarter then many, how to equalize that? Archie is smarter then you, how to equalize that? I had a crappy childhood, how to equalize that? Some gay couple forced a baker to make him a cake, I think they are scum bags and hope bad for them, how to equalize that? Protect the God given rights, (negative rights) and go on. Forget pushing equality, it is a negative. I'm not going to say that equality is categorically bad. I think it's a noble ideal in many cases. I applaud an employer who takes a risk on hiring a Polish employee even though his general experience with Polish employees is poor, or a Christian theater owner who doesn't reserve the best seats in the theater for non-Islamic moviegoers. My problem is with the myth that equality laws change people's hearts and minds, and the fact that such laws inevitably go way too far, to the point of being counterproductive, oppressive, and even immoral. Hence we agree they cause more problems than they solve. Of course, the courts and a hundred million lawyers, activists, and do-gooders besides believe in the myth of "social justice", and that's the legal framework we have to operate in. Except when it comes to fathers opting out of parenthood, where equality can apparently still go screw itself.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 16:08:57 GMT -5
And there we go. Now, we're making progress. So we all realize that the current system is unequal, and we can drop the twisted logic trying to explain how the unequal system is actually equal or fair. Now we can discuss the real issue. Is equality worth striving for, even if it leads us to changing unequal situations that we happen to agree with? The argument I have made is that anyone who makes a baby is responsible for that baby, and that baby has rights that a parent cannot give up because for selfish reasons, like "I don't want to pay for a baby". The woman has more choices because of biology, that is an inherent fact. You are the one arguing for equality. I think it is a dumb selfish argument and wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 16:12:56 GMT -5
And there we go. Now, we're making progress. So we all realize that the current system is unequal, and we can drop the twisted logic trying to explain how the unequal system is actually equal or fair. Now we can discuss the real issue. Is equality worth striving for, even if it leads us to changing unequal situations that we happen to agree with? You and others here want to throw away a child's right to support from those who brought him into the world for some false ideal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 16:13:02 GMT -5
As an aside: I'm surprised that in all these years DJ has never started a thread on civil asset forfeiture. It's such a blatant defilement of civil rights, it just screams "raging DJ thread", but he's never broached the subject as far as I'm aware. What's up with that, djAdvocate? Are you getting tired in your old age? well, you should know by now that i tend to comment on threads rather than starting them. nudge nudge. edit: i commented on it once in passing during a discussion on drug laws.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 19:33:06 GMT -5
And there we go. Now, we're making progress. So we all realize that the current system is unequal, and we can drop the twisted logic trying to explain how the unequal system is actually equal or fair. Now we can discuss the real issue. Is equality worth striving for, even if it leads us to changing unequal situations that we happen to agree with? The argument I have made is that anyone who makes a baby is responsible for that baby, and that baby has rights that a parent cannot give up because for selfish reasons, like "I don't want to pay for a baby". The woman has more choices because of biology, that is an inherent fact. You are the one arguing for equality. I think it is a dumb selfish argument and wrong. And that argument has been PROVEN false continually.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 19:39:13 GMT -5
The argument I have made is that anyone who makes a baby is responsible for that baby, and that baby has rights that a parent cannot give up because for selfish reasons, like "I don't want to pay for a baby". The woman has more choices because of biology, that is an inherent fact. You are the one arguing for equality. I think it is a dumb selfish argument and wrong. And that argument has been PROVEN false continually. You haven't proven anything. You state your opinion as fact. Pretty much I am doing the same, but I am not claiming o be proving anything. Your argument is incoherent. You talk about 'preferences' but can't say what they mean in the context you use it. You talk about obligations and cannot say how that obligation should be viewed by the person the obligation is owed to. You have some crazy ideal on equality that can never be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:22:05 GMT -5
And that argument has been PROVEN false continually. You haven't proven anything. You state your opinion as fact. Pretty much I am doing the same, but I am not claiming o be proving anything. Your argument is incoherent. You talk about 'preferences' but can't say what they mean in the context you use it. You talk about obligations and cannot say how that obligation should be viewed by the person the obligation is owed to. You have some crazy ideal on equality that can never be. I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I laid out facts. Can parents put a child up for adoption... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can "the state" remove a child from what it considers "unfit parents"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can a mother LEGALLY "abandon" her baby (within a certain, legally specified, time-frame), by just walking in to a designated "safe-haven" location (such as a hospital, fire station, or police station), handing the baby over and saying "I don't want it"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the legally correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. All that aside... there's nothing "crazy" about the equality I suggest. You just don't like it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:31:40 GMT -5
You haven't proven anything. You state your opinion as fact. Pretty much I am doing the same, but I am not claiming o be proving anything. Your argument is incoherent. You talk about 'preferences' but can't say what they mean in the context you use it. You talk about obligations and cannot say how that obligation should be viewed by the person the obligation is owed to. You have some crazy ideal on equality that can never be. I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I laid out facts. Can parents put a child up for adoption... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can "the state" remove a child from what it considers "unfit parents"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can a mother LEGALLY "abandon" her baby (within a certain, legally specified, time-frame), by just walking in to a designated "safe-haven" location (such as a hospital, fire station, or police station), handing the baby over and saying "I don't want it"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the legally correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. All that aside... there's nothing "crazy" about the equality I suggest. You just don't like it. Can someone shut you up, maybe by shooting you? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then you have no right to free speech or even life. Can "the state" put you in jail for criminal behavior .... yes or no? If yes (blah blah) then you have no right to basic freedom. There are pragmatic issues that come into play that take precedence over philosophical beliefs. That does not mean the philosophical beliefs have no merit. I get that, but that is not what this thread is about. It is about abject selfishness over the needs of a child someone brought into the world. Leaving a baby at a safe haven is about the child. I do not like your ideas on equality. I think they are immoral, wrong and dumb. They are incoherent. You obviously are making up the logic as you go along to get to the conclusion you want, equality.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:41:21 GMT -5
I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I laid out facts. Can parents put a child up for adoption... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can "the state" remove a child from what it considers "unfit parents"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can a mother LEGALLY "abandon" her baby (within a certain, legally specified, time-frame), by just walking in to a designated "safe-haven" location (such as a hospital, fire station, or police station), handing the baby over and saying "I don't want it"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the legally correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. All that aside... there's nothing "crazy" about the equality I suggest. You just don't like it. Can someone shut you up, maybe by shooting you? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then you have no right to free speech or even life. Can "the state" put you in jail for criminal behavior .... yes or no? If yes (blah blah) then you have no right to basic freedom. There are pragmatic issues that come into play that take precedence over philosophical beliefs. That does not mean the philosophical beliefs have no merit. I get that, but that is not what this thread is about. It is about abject selfishness over the needs of a child someone brought into the world. Leaving a baby at a safe haven is about the child. I do not like your ideas on equality. I think they are immoral, wrong and dumb. They are incoherent. You obviously are making up the logic as you go along to get to the conclusion you want, equality. Your first example is flawed... because that would be an illegal act Your second example is flawed... because committing criminal behavior creates a situation whereby as punishment certain of your rights are taken away. You can not like them all you want, you have that right, but you not liking them doesn't make them immoral. They are actually VERY moral, because equality is moral.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 19, 2015 20:43:33 GMT -5
You haven't proven anything. You state your opinion as fact. Pretty much I am doing the same, but I am not claiming o be proving anything. Your argument is incoherent. You talk about 'preferences' but can't say what they mean in the context you use it. You talk about obligations and cannot say how that obligation should be viewed by the person the obligation is owed to. You have some crazy ideal on equality that can never be. I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I laid out facts. Can parents put a child up for adoption... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can "the state" remove a child from what it considers "unfit parents"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can a mother LEGALLY "abandon" her baby (within a certain, legally specified, time-frame), by just walking in to a designated "safe-haven" location (such as a hospital, fire station, or police station), handing the baby over and saying "I don't want it"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the legally correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. All that aside... there's nothing "crazy" about the equality I suggest. You just don't like it. In all of those cases though, the responsibility to and support for the baby remain. Society has decreed that the baby does have a right to support. What it does is allow that responsibility for support to be transferred to someone else willing to accept it. There is no right to unilaterally walk away without providing for that support to be transferred to someone else. You see attempts to do that, with dead babies found buried or in garbage cans. Those parents are prosecuted, and rightfully so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:49:24 GMT -5
I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I laid out facts. Can parents put a child up for adoption... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can "the state" remove a child from what it considers "unfit parents"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. Can a mother LEGALLY "abandon" her baby (within a certain, legally specified, time-frame), by just walking in to a designated "safe-haven" location (such as a hospital, fire station, or police station), handing the baby over and saying "I don't want it"... yes or no? If "yes" (which is the legally correct answer) then a child's "right to support from their biological parent" DOES NOT EXIST. All that aside... there's nothing "crazy" about the equality I suggest. You just don't like it. In all of those cases though, the responsibility to and support for the baby remain. Society has decreed that the baby does have a right to support. What it does is allow that responsibility for support to be transferred to someone else willing to accept it. There is no right to unilaterally walk away without providing for that support to be transferred to someone else. You see attempts to do that, with dead babies found buried or in garbage cans. Those parents are prosecuted, and rightfully so. NO argument from me on the bolded. The rest is... much less worthy of comment. ETA: in my agreement with the bolded however I'm adding the disclaimer that that "support" CAN be 100% from the mother... if she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term in contradiction of the wishes of the father.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:51:05 GMT -5
Can someone shut you up, maybe by shooting you? If "yes" (which is the correct answer) then you have no right to free speech or even life. Can "the state" put you in jail for criminal behavior .... yes or no? If yes (blah blah) then you have no right to basic freedom. There are pragmatic issues that come into play that take precedence over philosophical beliefs. That does not mean the philosophical beliefs have no merit. I get that, but that is not what this thread is about. It is about abject selfishness over the needs of a child someone brought into the world. Leaving a baby at a safe haven is about the child. I do not like your ideas on equality. I think they are immoral, wrong and dumb. They are incoherent. You obviously are making up the logic as you go along to get to the conclusion you want, equality. Your first example is flawed... because that would be an illegal act Your second example is flawed... because committing criminal behavior creates a situation whereby as punishment certain of your rights are taken away. You can not like them all you want, you have that right, but you not liking them doesn't make them immoral. They are actually VERY moral, because equality is moral. No, my not liking them does not make them immoral. Forcing pregnant women to choose between abortion and a very good chance at poverty for her and their child makes it immoral. The complete selfishness of the proposal makes it immoral. The tossing away of personal responsibility for the life you helped create makes it immoral.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:54:11 GMT -5
Your first example is flawed... because that would be an illegal act Your second example is flawed... because committing criminal behavior creates a situation whereby as punishment certain of your rights are taken away. You can not like them all you want, you have that right, but you not liking them doesn't make them immoral. They are actually VERY moral, because equality is moral. No, my not liking them does not make them immoral. Forcing pregnant women to choose between abortion and a very good chance at poverty for her and their child makes it immoral. The complete selfishness of the proposal makes it immoral. The tossing away of personal responsibility for the life you helped create makes it immoral. Incorrect. Forcing someone else to abide by YOUR choice is immoral. She gets the choice (and no argument from me against that she should be the only one with the choice). She has to take the consequences (good AND/OR bad)... that's how choice is supposed to work.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 19, 2015 21:03:34 GMT -5
But you have made it effectively no longer a free choice. You have made the "option" to abort coercive.
And what type of equality do you expect to get? You do not get equality of choice because you do not have equality of burden. You DO get equality of responsibility, which is exactly as it should be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:34:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 21:39:06 GMT -5
But you have made it effectively no longer a free choice. You have made the "option" to abort coercive.
And what type of equality do you expect to get? You do not get equality of choice because you do not have equality of burden. You DO get equality of responsibility, which is exactly as it should be. No. Her choice is still freely hers. She just would not be able to force her choice to have consequences on someone else anymore.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 19, 2015 22:31:51 GMT -5
Not at all the case. It would instead be, "Abort or do everything yourself" thus almost ensuring poverty for both mother and child. Given how divisive the "free" choice to abort has made the country, I can't even imagine what would come of women feeling coerced into it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 22:35:55 GMT -5
Not at all the case. It would instead be, "Abort or do everything yourself" thus almost ensuring poverty for both mother and child. Given how divisive the "free" choice to abort has made the country, I can't even imagine what would come of women feeling coerced into it. if the father died it would be no different. sometimes, practicalities intervene in even the best made plans. and, of course, the worst.
|
|