Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:17:27 GMT -5
About the only way that I could absolve him of responsibility were if he could prove (or she admitted) that he was forced into the sexual encounter in the first place. No choice = no responsibility. If he entered into it of his own volition then he is responsible for outcomes from it. I don't see a way around that unless she gives him the option, which she may very well do just to have him out of the picture and out of their lives.
SDG's friend's case as presented is symptomatic of something very wrong with the system. I will grant that. In your view is the obligation of the father to the mother or to the child?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:20:10 GMT -5
You bolded the wrong one to ask that question. I bolded the answer to your question for you. Obviously there can be no TRUE equality since men physically/biologically can't become pregnant... BUT... there could be a limited equality in the ability to "opt out" of parentage (which is something women can do currently, but men are not allowed to). so unequal problems and equal solution? Are you intentionally misunderstanding this? No. Unequal problems get unequal solutions. Equal problems get equal solutions. Unequal problem is "women can get pregnant, men can't" Unequal solution is "women have 100% control over whether or not to carry pregnancy to term". Equal problem is "women can opt out of parentage", equal solution would be "men can opt out of parentage too (but they don't get to force the woman to abort or adopt out, they tell her if she continues, she does so as a sole parent)".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:24:48 GMT -5
so unequal problems and equal solution? Are you intentionally misunderstanding this? No. Unequal problems get unequal solutions. Equal problems get equal solutions. Unequal problem is "women can get pregnant, men can't" Unequal solution is "women have 100% control over whether or not to carry pregnancy to term". Equal problem is "women can opt out of parentage", equal solution would be "men can opt out of parentage too (but they don't get to force the woman to abort or adopt out, they tell her if she continues, she does so as a sole parent)". Boo!!!
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Aug 9, 2015 18:26:36 GMT -5
How do you feel if the woman's choice is to terminate the pregnancy and the man wants to keep/raise the infant once it's born?
Does he have no rights in that regard? This is a question I asked previously that nobody responded to.
Where are HIS rights if he wants to be a father to the child he helped create and the mother doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy? Is he basically S.O.L?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:29:47 GMT -5
How do you feel if the woman's choice is to terminate the pregnancy and the man wants to keep/raise the infant once it's born?
Does he have no rights in that regard? This is a question I asked previously that nobody responded to.
Where are HIS rights if he wants to be a father to the child he helped create and the mother doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy? Is he basically S.O.L?
How would that work? Would they transplant the fetus into the man somehow?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:33:10 GMT -5
How do you feel if the woman's choice is to terminate the pregnancy and the man wants to keep/raise the infant once it's born?
Does he have no rights in that regard? This is a question I asked previously that nobody responded to.
Where are HIS rights if he wants to be a father to the child he helped create and the mother doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy? Is he basically S.O.L?
I would say he has no rights in that regard. It sucks, but it IS her body. She is the only one that has the right to choose what happens with/within it. (My apologies... I thought I already gave my view on that question)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:34:48 GMT -5
Child support is mandatory, the court will garnish your wages, and if you fail to pay you can be sent to prison. Those sure sound like consequences to me. Ummm... yeah. That's the point. Those consequences are unjust. The man should have the same right to "opt out" of parentage that a woman has.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 19:08:14 GMT -5
About the only way that I could absolve him of responsibility were if he could prove (or she admitted) that he was forced into the sexual encounter in the first place. No choice = no responsibility. If he entered into it of his own volition then he is responsible for outcomes from it. I don't see a way around that unless she gives him the option, which she may very well do just to have him out of the picture and out of their lives.
SDG's friend's case as presented is symptomatic of something very wrong with the system. I will grant that. In your view is the obligation of the father to the mother or to the child? In the greater sense it would technically be to both, but if the mother can effectively take over the father's responsibilities I think it is fine. Two parents would be better in most cases, but I am under no delusion that just because a father is in the picture that it is good for the child. Best thing some could do is disappear.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:11:34 GMT -5
In your view is the obligation of the father to the mother or to the child? In the greater sense it would technically be to both, but if the mother can effectively take over the father's responsibilities I think it is fine. Two parents would be better in most cases, but I am under no delusion that just because a father is in the picture that it is good for the child. Best thing some could do is disappear. So you think that society can give up the child's rights for him? I think rights are inherent and only the person who owns the rights can give them up. Unless of course crime or something forces the govt to take away the rights. Do you describe yourself as a liberal?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:22:25 GMT -5
About the only way that I could absolve him of responsibility were if he could prove (or she admitted) that he was forced into the sexual encounter in the first place. No choice = no responsibility. If he entered into it of his own volition then he is responsible for outcomes from it. I don't see a way around that unless she gives him the option, which she may very well do just to have him out of the picture and out of their lives.
SDG's friend's case as presented is symptomatic of something very wrong with the system. I will grant that. In your view is the obligation of the father to the mother or to the child? If the woman is pregnant, there is no child. There is a fetus, which is a POSSIBLE child (it becomes a child once it survives all the way to birth {fetuses self-abort all the time, miscarriages are not exactly uncommon you know}, then it becomes a child with all the rights of every other living, BREATHING, and INDIVIDUAL, human being).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:24:52 GMT -5
In the greater sense it would technically be to both, but if the mother can effectively take over the father's responsibilities I think it is fine. Two parents would be better in most cases, but I am under no delusion that just because a father is in the picture that it is good for the child. Best thing some could do is disappear. So you think that society can give up the child's rights for him? I think rights are inherent and only the person who owns the rights can give them up. Unless of course crime or something forces the govt to take away the rights. Do you describe yourself as a liberal? I actually agree with the bolded. Problem is, a fetus has yet to inherit those rights. That only happens with birth. Until born, the rights of a fetus are secondary to the rights of the pregnant woman carrying it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2015 19:27:44 GMT -5
so unequal problems and equal solution? Are you intentionally misunderstanding this? No. Unequal problems get unequal solutions. Equal problems get equal solutions. Unequal problem is "women can get pregnant, men can't" Unequal solution is "women have 100% control over whether or not to carry pregnancy to term". Equal problem is "women can opt out of parentage", equal solution would be "men can opt out of parentage too (but they don't get to force the woman to abort or adopt out, they tell her if she continues, she does so as a sole parent)". thanks. i think this is the most logical position, and helps me avoid the straddle i was posting earlier. now, if i can just REMEMBER it......
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:29:05 GMT -5
In your view is the obligation of the father to the mother or to the child? If the woman is pregnant, there is no child. There is a fetus, which is a POSSIBLE child (it becomes a child once it survives all the way to birth {fetuses self-abort all the time, miscarriages are not exactly uncommon you know}, then it becomes a child with all the rights of every other living, BREATHING, and INDIVIDUAL, human being). That is my position with the addition of "a child has the right to support from his/her parents".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 19:30:33 GMT -5
I describe myself as a liberal thinker. (That is not necessarily the same thing.) Some of my positions are liberal. Some are not. I have always described myself as moderate, independent, socially liberal, fiscally conservative. My bias is toward individual liberty and responsibility and equal treatment. Always.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:31:13 GMT -5
So you think that society can give up the child's rights for him? I think rights are inherent and only the person who owns the rights can give them up. Unless of course crime or something forces the govt to take away the rights. Do you describe yourself as a liberal? I actually agree with the bolded. Problem is, a fetus has yet to inherit those rights. That only happens with birth. Until born, the rights of a fetus are secondary to the rights of the pregnant woman carrying it. That too is my view with the addition of "a child has the right to the support of its parents".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:36:04 GMT -5
I actually agree with the bolded. Problem is, a fetus has yet to inherit those rights. That only happens with birth. Until born, the rights of a fetus are secondary to the rights of the pregnant woman carrying it. That too is my view with the addition of "a child has the right to the support of its parents". And if a parent dies? What then? A child has no such "right".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2015 19:37:42 GMT -5
That too is my view with the addition of "a child has the right to the support of its parents". And if a parent dies? What then? A child has no such "right". the relation of parent to child is custodial. the child has no right to parentS. see "IV fertilization" and AI. edit: i think that there is a moral problem of parents that have no interest in children. they are responsible for making sure that the child is cared for, but it need not be them that does it. and, of course, if they die, there is nobody to hold to account.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:39:57 GMT -5
That too is my view with the addition of "a child has the right to the support of its parents". And if a parent dies? What then? A child has no such "right". You and I have a very different understanding of what a "right" is. I think rights can be denied, look at North Korea. That doesn't mean the person does not have the inherent right. By your view, no one has a right, because they all can be denied by someone with the power to deny. Men, now are held accountable for children they do not want. You are arguing, if I understand you correctly, that they have a right that is being denied.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 19:41:55 GMT -5
And........we're back to the bakery thread!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:42:11 GMT -5
And if a parent dies? What then? A child has no such "right". You and I have a very different understanding of what a "right" is. I think rights can be denied, look at North Korea. That doesn't mean the person does not have the inherent right. By your view, no one has a right, because they all can be denied by someone with the power to deny. No. We both understand what a "right" is... you are just confusing some "rights" with "preferences"... as well as confusing when those rights/preferences have merit over and above the rights/preferences of another.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:44:42 GMT -5
You and I have a very different understanding of what a "right" is. I think rights can be denied, look at North Korea. That doesn't mean the person does not have the inherent right. By your view, no one has a right, because they all can be denied by someone with the power to deny. No. We both understand what a "right" is... you are just confusing some "rights" with "preferences"... as well as confusing when those rights/preferences have merit over and above the rights/preferences of another. Either a child has a right to the support of his parents or he does not have that right. And no, my understanding of what a right is is very different from yours.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:44:52 GMT -5
And........we're back to the bakery thread! I don't "like" it (even though I did give it a " ")... but I definitely agree with you!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:45:22 GMT -5
No. We both understand what a "right" is... you are just confusing some "rights" with "preferences"... as well as confusing when those rights/preferences have merit over and above the rights/preferences of another. Either a child has a right to the support of his parents or he does not have that right. And no, my understanding of what a right is is very different from yours. A child has no such right. That's a preference.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2015 19:45:11 GMT -5
And if a parent dies? What then? A child has no such "right". You and I have a very different understanding of what a "right" is. I think rights can be denied, look at North Korea. That doesn't mean the person does not have the inherent right. By your view, no one has a right, because they all can be denied by someone with the power to deny. when Richard says RIGHT, i think he means LEGAL RIGHT. if you mean absolute right, or moral right, it is very difficult to assert such rights without the force of law on your side. for example, i think i have the RIGHT to do whatever i wish with my person or property so long as i am not harming the person or property of a non consenting other. however, i can't commit suicide practically anywhere. i can't loiter many places. i can't go commando in public. i can't buy and use cocaine. so having the moral right from my perspective doesn't actually mean much, when i can be thrown in jail for any of the above.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:45:50 GMT -5
And........we're back to the bakery thread! Consistency in where our rights are derived is a good thing, right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:46:40 GMT -5
Either a child has a right to the support of his parents or he does not have that right. And no, my understanding of what a right is is very different from yours. A child has no such right. That's a preference. Boo!!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2015 19:47:30 GMT -5
And........we're back to the bakery thread! not quite. we are only back there when we assert that discrimination against protected classes is a RIGHT. that seems like a rather bizarre thing to assert, but i know- some people actually think that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 9, 2015 19:47:59 GMT -5
A child has no such right. That's a preference. Boo!!! this might surprise you, but i really like it when you do that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:50:21 GMT -5
Either a child has a right to the support of his parents or he does not have that right. And no, my understanding of what a right is is very different from yours. A child has no such right. That's a preference. Can a parent, at any time in the life of the child, end his parental obligations? Say during the terrible twos? Or if the child get a terrible illness, can the parent end his/ her obligations?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 19:52:32 GMT -5
A child has no such right. That's a preference. Boo!!! "Boo!!!" it all you like... it doesn't change the fact that it's not a right. If it were a right, women COULDN'T give up their spawn for adoption. If it were a right, children could DEMAND hospitals keep their parents alive on machines until such time as they recover (or the child becomes 18 and loses that "right") If it were a right, parents would be barred from disciplining their children (different form of "support", but, still "atta-boys" are "support")
|
|