| |
LW said:
One of the things I found most abhorrent about your position is the gross disregard for responsibility in these situations. The "responsibility" factor is a forced action on a man. It truly is. If a man knows he doesn't want children, there really isn't a way to force him to want them. Forcing him to be responsible doesn't make him want them either.
One can be irresponsible sexually, but where is the outcry and effort to force them into being "responsible?" There is none. In fact, sexually (and morally) irresponsible women are rewarded. The law has set up a reward system for these women.
I would better understand this if it were coming from modern day liberals who don't seem to believe anyone is responsible for much of anything, but stemming from an Objectivist standpoint it is most disquieting.
I know, I know...you have plenty of company, believe me! The thing is, is that as an Objectivist, I think people should be free to exercise their choices without the state butting into their personal, private business. I don't think that one irresponsible person should be able to appeal to the state in order to be rewarded for being irresponsible. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? It sure does to me.
Rand stated(paraphrasing) that a philosophy must be useful in daily life, yet I can't understand this transference of responsibility you are talking about. In *real* life this amounts to shirking any duty a man may have and allowing others to pick up his slack. It is extremely interesting to me how the law can effect the thought process of an entire population. I understand that people can mistake "law" for "morality," as exemplified above. Are you sure you want to use the "D" word, LW? Is supporting an irresponsible woman a "duty," or a "sacrifice?"
I'm asking because I hope you'll be able to articulate the exact nature of the duty in real life. I was under the long held impression that "duty," as a concept, is rejected by Objectivism.
I have to tell you, knowing that you don't want children is far more responsible and "natural" than abstaining from sex, which is wholly un-natural for human beings. We love it. Even people who can't procreate love sex. There's definitely something more to it than just making babies.
It's not what you put in your body which is in question here. If it were as simple as that then I would have no disagreement with you. It is what emerges from a joint action, it is about an entity which requires food, clothing, shelter and the many other things associated with a human being. This is where your argument has not been carried to it's logical conclusion. This entity only emerges as a result of one person's choice, not two. This is the crucial distinction that you're ignoring, and I'm not at all clear as to why that is. Are women forced to bare and raise children where you're from? Is there something sacred about a woman choosing to bare and raise a child she cannot afford? I just can't understand your reasoning, because you're totally ignoring important factors, like alternatives that exist for women that don't exist for men. I'm really trying to understand, too.
There is nothing in nature that would give a woman's "choice" more weight than a man's, yet that's your argument. Men have to live with, and take responsibility for a woman's choice, no matter how irrational or irresponsible it is. How does that square with reality? How does that square with rational responsibility? I just don't understand.
The argument that he does not have any say so in the women's body also doesn't excuse his participation in the act. This was another thing he should have been fully aware of going in. As I said earlier blame nature for his not having the say so in the matter. Man can only structure his laws according to what exists not what may be some wishful thinking on our parts. The law has created a monster in this country. That is what exists. The law is not recognizing reality or the nature of man, the law has created a false reality, a false nature of man. Penalties exist because of the law, not because of nature. In nature, a man would be free to leave, and a woman would be free to exercise any and all alternatives that exist. The law would have no say in the matter.
Without penalty of law, how would the outcomes change? Woman would still have all of the alternatives available to them now, save for one: the right to appeal to the state to issue support, by force, for her own choice.
I can tell you how the outcomes would change. We would see a dramatic drop in poverty overall. Child neglect and abuse would fall off the charts. Educational test scores would sky rocket. Men and women would have longer lasting and happier relationships. Children would be a wanted, welcomed, cherished additions to their lives. Divorce rates would drop. Unplanned pregnancies would plummet. Teen birthrates would drop. Marriages would increase. Drug abuse would dwindle. Productivity would rise.
The law has created, and you have embraced, a new welfare system. Not based on anything real or supporting anything "natural," but on a misguided, antiquated, down right Christian view of human nature. Human beings aren't wicked beasts in need of control. They're thoughtful and loving by nature, unless they're cornered, coerced, and manipulated, which is exactly what support laws do, and are.
|
|
