RoR: Forum

Steve, as I said, you're cute while you're frothing. Since you admit that nothing I can say will disprove your arbitrary assertions not about my arguments, (And just what the hell is an anti-male bias?) but about my psycho-epistemology, to which you evidently have privileged access, I wonder why you feel the need to communicate with me. You seem neither to understand obvious irony ("orthodox Objectivists") nor the clear meanings of words - burden of liberal infra-structures. Do you happen to know what Rand's opinion of casual sex was? You don't know mine - so I'll clarify it. If I engage in it, I don't fantasize that it will be consequence free. I am touched by your sympathy for my "minority lifestyle" (whatever that means). Pray tell me, how happy are you in your "majority lifestyle"? You seem as humourless as an STD (tsk, tsk!) and as paranoid as the pontifical latter day Peikoff, but it's your thread, so you can cry if you want to, cry if you want to...

Post 21

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 6:12pm

M. Keer - I am asking you, then, what do you think of the argument that pregnancy is not the responsibility of the "gamete donor"?

Post 22

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 7:02pm

As a personal ethical matter, I think it's undignified to treat your sperm as if it's not a part of you - indeed a body part in ways just as important as your brain and your heart. Sperm can lead to immortality through your posterity. I am not implying that all sex should be for procreation or anything like that. But sperm is an animate part of you.

As a political matter I agree entirely that it is quite unfair that a woman can abort or choose to raise a child and then force a man to support a child that he could not force her to abort. Indeed, if the two parties agreed not to try to conceive and the man had either taken the appropriate precautions or had good reason to believe that the woman had done so, and then she conceived intentionally to trap him into fatherhood, then the law forcing him to support this child would seem quite unjust. And Audrey's case, if it is true, was quite a miscarriage of justice, no pun intended.

My biggest concern would be that no matter what, the man cannot ignore the risk that he might father a child - just like he can't ignore the fact that he might transmit or catch a disease. And if a child is fathered, should the man be able to coerce the woman into aborting? Unless there is a signed contract before the conception, should the child be without the father's support, or more important, become a ward of the state if the mother cannot support it?

I have no problem with the law specifying that an unmarried mother should not be able to sue for child support if she does conceive without the father's express support. I think the matter should be addressed by law.

I don't think your "may I throw a seed on your lawn" analogy is quite right, since trees develop without human support, while sperm is a body part, and bastard children littering the world are not a burden that the state should have to support so that a man can engage in sex willy-nilly. But I agree totally that the law is unfair as it is, and that it should be changed, both as regards children conceived within and outside marriage.

How exactly to word that law is not something I have troubled myself with recently, as I'm not dating a woman. But whenever I have had potentially conceptive sex, I have been quite conscious of, and felt very personally responsible for my actions, and I have never slept with a woman without discussing the matter first.

Thanks,

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/21, 7:08pm)

Post 23

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 7:33pm

The phenomenon of unmarried motherhood among blacks in America is a real one, and one that is become much more common among all races and classes. The obvious cause of it becoming socially unexceptionable was the extension of benefits which were originally meant for widows to unmarried mothers by choice under the Democrat welfare plans. Once New Jersey announced that newly conceived children by unwed mothers would not entitle them to extra benefits in the mid-nineties, the unwed birth rate dropped something like 15-25% in one year.

Where I work, some 80% of the employees are black or black/latino, and a large majority of them are unwed parents. Indeed, it is not uncommon for co-workers to conceive a child and then have to be put in separate departments due to conflicts over child support or paternity. But most of the women seem to plan their actions, to be loving mothers, and indeed, to be devout practicing Christians. A highly educated cousin of mine chose to become an unwed mother when she reached her late thirties and had been divorced.

Where I grew up in South Jersey in the 1980's it was 95% white, and unwed teenage moms usually ended up having the baby adopted by its grandparents, this was the case with a neighbour of mine and the sister of a best friend.

And the love of my life, a black man from Harlem, Gerald Edward Wells, who was murdered in 1996 in a carjacking, casually admitted to me one day that as far as he was aware, he had two or three children that he had fathered in his teens. The mothers never pressed the issue, and I can see why they chose him (6'4", genius IQ, model-handsome, a beautiful radio-announcers voice, interned for WSOU and 92.3 K-Rock, smelled like a football team!) as a sperm donor. It's nice to fantasize that some handsome kid I see on the train might be his.

I happen to love being a male, but I also love children, and do in a way envy women in that they can so easily become single parents if they wish. I myself am having a hard enough time stopping myself from adopting stray dogs, since I know what a responsibility that is. I love sex, but it is momentary - I love family, romance and children, they are forever.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/21, 9:49pm)

Post 24

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 7:45pm

     "As we all know, with rights comes responsibilities." Huh? 'As we all know', we're not talking O'ism here, now are we?

     I have a right to my own life, ergo, I have a 'responsibility' to...whom?

     The only responsibilities/obligations (given the context of the thread's subject) one acquires re any rights is the right to decide about someone else's life...as in talking about a pregnancy where there's gestation of a 'person' (if and when such there be), and not a mere blastula.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 4/21, 7:47pm)

Post 25

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:51am

quoteYou should not be able to hold a man responsible for a child when he has no say (ie about whether to abort).

There's no great mystery as to how women get pregnant so it should not come as any great surprise to a man if you impregnate someone. You have your say so when you make the choice to stick it in or not, from there on it's a crap shoot.

The responsibility arises from the decision to engage in sex knowing what the outcome *can* be. As far as I am concerned anything else is an excuse to keep from being responsible for a consequence of an action that you know can damn well occur.

Post 26

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 12:04pm

-1000 points for M. LW Hall, for an unintellectual argument that begs the question.

Maybe try reading the article in question and addressing some of its arguments. (I mean, you did read the article, right? But, then again, from your so-called "argument", I wouldn't be able to discern that one way or the other).

EDIT: If you have a serious argument, M. Hall, please make it. Otherwise, your whole "he knew what would happen" has been addressed over and over again...please try to not be so reflexive and obviously intellectually lazy next time.

(Edited by Steven Druckenmiller on 4/22, 12:26pm)

Post 27

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 12:35pm

Your basic premise is flawed due to the unassailable fact that nature had the audacity to make the playing field unlevel. A man cannot have a baby so any input he has after the pregnancy occurs can be aimed at nothing but trying to make a woman carry the baby. If she chooses not to he has no responsibility so the issue is moot untill the time males are able to duplicate what nature has already given to females or if the fetus can be removed and raised in an artificial environment.

Your seed analogy doesn't hold water because the seeds you speak of require support and nourishment for many years in order to become independent human beings. We are not talking about weeds here so do try and get real. The inherent obligation lies in the fact that the sower knows what the outcome can be and irregardless of any consent on the part of the one with the "fertile garden" there is still a shared responsibility from the moment of sex because any idiot knows what the possibilities of his actions entail.

Post 28

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 1:29pm

Steven,

This is a very tolerant website where most people will be generous in argument, although they may not agree with the stance which you wish to take in an argument. I myself have engaged in several threads where I held unpopular stands, where I constantly saw people with three atlas icons on their posts for doing nothing else than calling me a heretic, while they studiously ignored my points. You simply can't expect people to come to your point of view, to refrain from bringing up issues you didn't want to address, or to post extremely long arguments when they think that what they are saying is clear.

A case in point would be Mr. Hall's post immediately above. He did pay you the respect of addressing your thread, even if he disagreed with your desired conclusion. Your response was an ejaculation (-1000 points; i.e., "off with his head!") an accusation of his begging the question, and then what amounted to an ad hominem attack, implying that he had neither read you nor made an argument. But he did not beg the question. And although it was brief, he did make an argument, logically equivalent to:

One knows the possible consequences of copulation.
One cannot avoid responsibility for the know consequents of their action.
Ergo, one cannot avoid responsibility for the consequences of copulation.

That does amount to an argument. A limited one, one that doesn't address whether women should be able to sue for child support if they trick a father by conceiving intentionally while lying about their intentions, but an argument and a valid one none the less.

Now don't think that he and I are ganging up, I would bet that where he and I have had the rare exchange, we have almost always been in disagreement, and I won't insist, but I don't get the impression that he particularly cares for me personally.

Furthermore, while I noticed the comment for which John Dailey's criticized you: "we all know that rights come with responsibilities" (One which Rand explicitly condemned, word for word, as not only invalid but vicious) I didn't bother to take the easy atlas point and mention it, knowing that anyone who's read Rand would see your gaffe. Instead, I posted several long posts talking about other issues that had not been brought up, but which I felt were relevant. I used strongly connotative and morally charged language ("random squirtings, lone-wolf scoundrels") as Rand herself would do, since she never divorced emotion from evaluation, and chose her words for maximum emotional and evocative rhetorical effect - and you objected yourself to this with equally emotional language, not in impersonal argument, but in personal psychologizing aimed at me. I took this in stride, didn't complain that you were hurting my feelings, but tried to give examples as to why I thought you might be unjustified in your personal accusations against me. And then, when you basically blew me off with a non-argument, "Ooh, so what" you got atlas points for doing a toned-down Michael Richards on me.

No problem, I've beaten-up muggers, pickpockets and thugs, seen people murdered, and have even been called names by drag queens (most horrifying!) so I didn't whine, I responded in kind, and am able to de-escalate the attack when you and I can communicate with mutual toleration. Looking at your post 19, I can't imagine why you got Atlas points for it, perhaps the person or people who sanctioned you could explain themselves. Maybe they just don't like me, so they sanctioned you because you criticized me. But I won't stay up nights worrying about it.

Your posts on this website are generally entertaining, if only for their provocative nature. If I had no respect or regard for you or what you said, I wouldn't have bothered posting on your thread. But neither can you reasonably take such offense if people make equally provocative or (what you see as) frustrating posts contra your positions. That's why I said, paraphrasing the 60's pop hit, "It's your thread and you can cry if you want to, cry if you want to..."

As someone who's controversial, and willing to take up an unpopular cause, or respond in kind to a personal attack, I invite you to step back, take a breath, and consider whether your own arguments themselves are orthodox - often they aren't - and whether the disagreement of others is such an insult - it isn't.

Ted Keer

[In personal correspondence, Mr. Hall has assured me he bears me no personal dislike, and I apologize to him for using him as an example and impertinently implying so much.]

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/22, 5:41pm)

Post 29

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 1:53pm

Hong Said:

Although I can not comprehend any women who would use a child to force an unwilling man to support her, I also don't have much sympathy for the man who gets himself into this situation. He choose to love or just to have sex with this kind of women and as a consequence lost control of his life. What can one say?

You presume every man has perfect knowledge of every woman h has sex with. If she really is planning to become pregnant from a sexual encounter, you must assume she is hiding both her plan and her true nature. A few hours or days of falseness may be all that is needed to maintain the illusion that she is an honorable person, and yes, in the current legal framework this does lead to the man losing control of a great portion of his life.

The trouble here is clearly the issue whereby a legal structure makes men who have sex risk becoming literal slaves to unscrupulous women.

The only way a rational man may protect himself from this is to only have sex with a woman once he is certain of her true nature. How long? I fear this advocates celibacy for men who do not wish to have children - unless you can refer him to a reliable fortune-teller.

Meanwhile, your feelings on the psychology of the woman seem sensible.

Post 30

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 2:48pm

quoteI should start first with how I view responsibility and rights. As we all know, with rights come responsibilities. The converse of this should be that if there are responsibilities present, it follows then that the agent who has been designated as responsible should have some form of rights or �a say� in the situation.

The situation as it stands for men in this country is exceptionally unbalanced. Men who are deemed responsible as fathering a child (leave aside for a moment whether a zygote can be designated a child) have absolutely no rights or say over the fate of that child whatsoever. If the female who is impregnated decides to terminate the pregnancy, the man cannot stop her: he has no say. If the mother decides she wants to keep the child, not only does the man have no say concerning this decision, he is also now legally obligated to financially support the decision of the mother. If the mother decides to give the child up for adoption, ultimately, the adoption can occur with no input from the father

It is common on here to see someone write existence exists, and thus this is where your first premise is flawed. Your starting point in the situation is the imbalance of rights, yet you miss the most important part and that is the imbalance begins with basic difference between a man and a woman. One can become pregnant and carry a baby and the other can't. So you might as well be mad with the sun when it doesn't adhere to your timetable it would have about the same effect.

The imbalance of rights which is your complaint is is inherent in the flawed premise that men and women start with equal distribution of responsibilities assigned to them by nature. They do not!

The mans responsibility begins with the sex act when he consents to the responsibility that he knows his actions can garner. The next part of the equation is entirely within the field of the woman's basic nature with respect to it being her and her alone which can carry the fetus to maturity. A man has no say because it is not his body that the fetus resides in. This does not negate the woman's part it is just that hers acquiescence in the matter is much more entailed than the man.

The only real input the man had was whether he was going to engage in an act which can bring this possibility into the real world.

In respect to the part about being entrapped by an unscrupulous female never take their word on any chance of fertility unless you are ready for the possibilities that exist if she is lying or mistake.

(Edited by L W Hall on 4/22, 2:55pm)

(Edited by L W Hall on 4/22, 2:58pm)

Post 31

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 5:15pm

Your starting point in the situation is the imbalance of rights, yet you miss the most important part and that is the imbalance begins with basic difference between a man and a woman. One can become pregnant and carry a baby and the other can't. So you might as well be mad with the sun when it doesn't adhere to your timetable it would have about the same effect.

So it truly is right and good that females have more rights than males, simply because the biology is "different?" You agree with the law, and its vehicles, subscribing to the notion that females are superior to males, and should be granted greater privilege to their lives and choices?

The imbalance of rights which is your complaint is is inherent in the flawed premise that men and women start with equal distribution of responsibilities assigned to them by nature. They do not!

Yes, you do appear to agree that males are inferior, biologically and cognitively.

The mans responsibility begins with the sex act when he consents to the responsibility that he knows his actions can garner.

He may know, he may not, but it doesn't matter as he is inferior in the eyes of the law and of nature. He surrenders his mind along with his body in the sex act. This is awesome! I suddenly feel quite powerful...

The next part of the equation is entirely within the field of the woman's basic nature with respect to it being her and her alone which can carry the fetus to maturity.

We rule! ;)

A man has no say because it is not his body that the fetus resides in.

Indeed! Again, males are inferior in the eyes of the law and of nature.

This does not negate the woman's part it is just that hers acquiescence in the matter is much more entailed than the man.

Oh, what to do? What to DO?

Hmmmm, abort? Adopt?

I know! Leash the inferior male for 18 years! Yes! The law is on my side, and the law is ALWAYS right! The law recognizes the superior nature of women because we are biologically supreme, which translates to cognitively supreme. The law holds our choice as supreme over the male! :cp Screw you, Mr. Babymaker!

Post 32

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:20pm

Teresa, first of all I would like to reiterate a little of what Ted said. Steven wrote an article which he posted I would guess for the purpose of getting other people's input. I responded which immediately percipitated an attack on his part in which he said I had not read his article, which I had. I then posted again simply stating why I disagree with him. You then follow up with a post that is nothing but sarcasm and in no way refutes what I wrote.

I'm not really sure what people are looking for on here, but these types of attacks are fairly common and serve absolutely no purpose. They do not point out flaws, they do not invite discussion, they do nothing to help bring about a better understanding of a philosophy I would think many would want to promote... they simply attack.

Objectivism is simply the worse off for all of it and it is the reason I very seldom say anything on here.

L W

Post 33

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:42pm

Lighten up, Mr. Hall. Mine was an attempt at satire, where a question was posed given you're conclusions:

The law is correct? Men should have fewer rights because of biology?

Post 34

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:45pm

It's a very simple equation, ladies and gentlemen: a woman's body, a woman's choice, a woman's responsibility. And no, M. Hall, nothing in your argument refutes that. You're just going on and on about how biology is unequal! We agree! It's the woman's body, let her do with it as she will.

Either men get a "say" in something 50% of their genes went into, or they do not. Since this would make pregnant women subservient to the fathers of their children, I hold this position is untenable.

Teresa refuted you well, M. Hall...just because it was in a sarcastic tone doesn't mean it didn't make your case mud.

Post 35

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:57pm

quoteTeresa refuted you well, M. Hall...just because it was in a sarcastic tone doesn't mean it didn't make your case mud

I *can* say this Steven: Any refutation she may have done was much more than you have.

Teresa, if I misunderstood the tone of your post my apologies.

Post 36

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:59pm

I'm going to apologize to Mr. Hall right here and now. I meant no ill will toward you, sir. I simply couldn't resist the opportunity to take a conclusion to its logical limit.

I understand that yours is an extremely popular view, and I should have been more generous toward it, given its popularity, and cultural underpinnings, but I let the crafty side of myself take over without regard for your serious nature.

My apologies to you, sir.

Post 37

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 7:19pm

Mr. Hall, my original article was a refutation to your "point". It is not my fault you failed to grasp it.

Post 38

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 7:52pm

quoteThe most just legal framework we can come up with for assigning rights and responsibilities for pregnancies is to hold the pregnant woman alone responsible for her pregnancy. Although it seems counterintuitive to think of this as just, a few analogies I developed will help illuminate this concept.

Say that you owned a yard. One day, whilst sitting on your porch, an individual walked by and asked �can I throw these seeds onto your yard?� You and you alone know that your yard is fertile. If you give permission for this person to throw seeds onto your yard and you had no prior agreement as to the consequences, then you and you alone are responsible for what grows there!

An additional example would be this: you are a person who is allergic to peanuts�you have a biological response to peanuts. Having full knowledge of this, you instruct someone to throw peanuts into your mouth. You and you alone are responsible for the biological consequences!

As it stands now, men have a majority of the responsibility and none of the rights as it pertains to pregnancies. This injustice must stop. If women are going to say �my body, my rights�, Objectivists and all people who believe in justice, must turn about and say �your body, your rights, your responsibilities.�

Is that so Steven, so you refuted it in your initial post. I think not!

So the most just legal framework we can come up with is to hold the woman alone responsible for her pregnancy? Kind of convenient for the man isn't it? "Sorry kid, beat it, you have no claim on my life because you see I really didn't want you to begin with and the gene pool within your body got there through happenstance". Of all the attempts to evade responsibility for an act which has repercussions that can stretch far into the future this one might take the cake.

I want to know how you come up with: "As it stands now, men have a majority of the responsibility .."? Are you speaking of the sorry excuses for humanity that think impregnating various women is a status symbol. Impregnating them and letting others pay for your actions from that day forward. Are you talking about the untold amount of money we taxpayers must put out to make up for these same sorry pieces of humanity. Just how many households have a single mother verses a single father?

I also don't know of any man ever dying from childbirth so I know you are not speaking of that particular responsibility. I really would like to know what you are speaking of when you say that men have the majority of responsibility since you put nothing in your article to back up that claim you just kind of slipped that one in. Speaking of "begging the question".

L W

Post 39

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 9:10pm