About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 1:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M. Hall, the closest thing I have found to an argument in your angry ramblings was this:

"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"

OK, and?  So we have to hold men responsible because children require so much work?  I don't see the connection.

"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."

So...how is the obligation inherent?  Why is the sower responsible?  Because he "knew" what would happen?  Huh?  Because pregnancy is possible, the man is somehow given an "inherent obligation"?

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?
I guess it's convenient...I mean, unless you're a man who wants his child but has no say when the woman goes to abort it.  (oops, I guess that's the system now).   I guess it's convenient for men the same way abortion laws are convenient for women.

If I own my body, what I put into it is my responsibility, no one else's.  If a woman owns her body...well, you get the point (or maybe not).

Like or not, yelling "Neener, neener, men have responsibilities for pregnancies!  Because, ummm, they had sex...and umm, because some men are pigs" ain't an argument.  Say WHY men have responsibility for what occurs in a woman's body under her consent and then we'll talk.  Until then, you're tragically missing the point, and yes, begging the question.

 




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steven, it was not my intention upon signing up to be addressed as mr, simply a mistake on my part when filling out the form. L W will do nicely.(-:


One of the things I found most abhorrent about your position is the gross disregard for responsibility in these situations. 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. 

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. Whether you like it or not that's what happens in the world we live in today. We help set the ball in motion and we should be well aware of where it may head.

quoteIf I own my body, what I put into it is my responsibility, no one else's.  If a woman owns her body...well, you get the point (or maybe not).
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.

The closest a woman could come to making a baby by herself would be through artificial insemination and this would be the only place where I believe you would have a valid argument. In most cases the man is engaging in an act as a willful partner with the full knowledge of possible outcomes. "I didn't intend for it to happen" does not excuse the action. 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.

quoteAs 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.”
I am still waiting for some proof of the above assertion on your part, untill then I will regard it as unsubstantiated rhetoric.

L W




Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
L W, your aside about artificial insemination is what makes my case.  Why does it make any difference where the semen comes from?  If a woman voluntarily puts semen in her body, does it make a difference what act it took to get it there?  Or does it just matter that, in both cases, a woman allowed a substance that could have biological repercussions for her into her body?

And, the fact that abortion exists and is a viable option for most women destroys the idea that said pregnancy will result in an entity that requires all of the things you enumerate above; women in general fought for this choice, but when they choose not to utilize that option, why is it then incumbent upon the man to continue to support her in that decision?

As you say, it is a joint effort. Men should either be given joint rights in the development of what they help create, or they should be given none. Right now, men are 50% responsible and are 0% entitled to any say.  That's an injustice.

I agree with you, our governmental laws must conform to the laws of nature.  Nature says that a woman has sole control over her body; so let her have sole control over it and anything growing in it.  Right now, women have sole control and are legally entitled to a man's money.  If I am paying for something, I should have some form of control over it.  If I pay for a movie, I can choose to stay or I can leave if I don't like it. If I buy stock, I have a say in the corporate process through stockholder's meetings and boards and votes.

If I pay child support, I have no say in how the child is raised. I have no say if he comes into the world at all.  Something that I, in your vernacular, jointly helped create is now completely and totally out of my hands.  The law can fix this, by ascribing responsibility to women over their own bodies. It can say "look, ladies, you're not going to be barred from having an abortion.  You won't be told you can't have children.  What you should understand though, is with those rights you are then responsible for anything you do with your body.  If you allow semen (in any method) in your body, be prepared for what your body is going to do; get pregnant"




Post 43

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
    For what it's worth, please check *my* argument (I'm not in the habit of repeating much...as I've made clear in another context) re rights & committments/responsibilities/'obligations' of Fathers (ergo, of any 'parent', biological or non-), especially how and when which starts, at

  http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3308

LLAP
J:D




Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

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. 




Post 45

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cheers!! Teresa......;-) ^5



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steven, I wish to address both what you and Teresa wrote, but I only have time for one short thing tonight.  I appreciate the way you addressed the situation in both of your posts.

quoteIf I pay child support, I have no say in how the child is raised. I have no say if he comes into the world at all.  Something that I, in your vernacular, jointly helped create is now completely and totally out of my hands.  The law can fix this, by ascribing responsibility to women over their own bodies. It can say "look, ladies, you're not going to be barred from having an abortion.  You won't be told you can't have children.  What you should understand though, is with those rights you are then responsible for anything you do with your body.  If you allow semen (in any method) in your body, be prepared for what your body is going to do; get pregnant"




The one quick thing I will get in is that I don't follow you in the above quote. In the state of Florida a man who is required to pay child support also has a say in the raising of the child. This is part of his parental rights. What do you mean when you say you have no say whatsoever? 




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, I will use some words which will make my question blunt, and perhaps unpalatable to S.D. I know you can take them.

If a fool sleeps with a slut, and she screws him over, who should foot the bill to raise his bastard?

Don't tell me that he's being forced into doing anything else than perhaps pay the price for his impulsive act. (And I'm speaking of unmarried couples. In Audrey's example, of married couples, the law can more easily be placed on rational grounds - an adulterer and not his cuckold should be forced to support his child - if the legal father choses to sue for divorce.) Of course the law should not force a man to "love" anyone. Who here thinks that's the issue? But how does this specious argument relieve a one-night stander of responsibility for his spawn - and by default lay that burden upon you and me - should the mother also default on her duty to raise a child that he chose to risk and she chose to bring into the world?

I think the problem here is not us fogeys advocating forced parenthood. It's you percept bound anarchists who get distracted by the fact that 9 months intervene between deposit and withdrawal. Just like the savage thinks money is something that comes out of ATM's (blank out) the free love advocate can't act as if babies are no one's burden.

Fine, let's set up a civil system of casual sex contracts where a man can force a woman to sign away her right to sue for child support before he'll let her mount him. (Hah!) This is the logical corollary of what the man's lib party as argued by S.D. wants, is it not? But even then, can she sign away her child's rights? The child and society are the innocent parties, not the harlot or the gigolo. Let the fornicators pay the price of their actions. I have always paid the price of mine.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/23, 9:59pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 3:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 But how does this specious argument relieve a one-night stander of responsibility for his spawn - and by default lay that burden upon you and me - should the mother also default on her duty to raise a child that he chose to risk and she chose to bring into the world?
Dear Ted -

Did he lay the burden onto us, or did she?  Is the system to blame for the burden caused by her choice? I happen to think it is, as long as state supplied force remains an alternative for women.

If a woman is against abortion, and against adoption, and really wants a child of her own, there is absolutely nothing legally or culturally preventing her from doing that. Nothing.  If force was not available to women, I have no doubt that for a short time some would default on perceived duties. A very short time. They default on them now, even with force as an alternative!

I think the problem here is not us fogeys advocating forced parenthood. It's you percept bound anarchists who get distracted by the fact that 9 months intervene between deposit and withdrawal. Just like the savage thinks money is something that comes out of ATM's (blank out) the free love advocate can't act as if babies are no one's burden.
Oh, Ted, I so sympathise with this view. I really do. But don't you think perhaps the system has created the idea that babies are a "burden?"  I think it has. My maternal grandmother raised 11 children alone after her husband died. She never remarried.
My father is the product of an unwed teenage mother. He was raised by his grandmother, who had 6 children of her own, and is grateful for it.

But even then, can she sign away her child's rights? The child and society are the innocent parties, not the harlot or the gigolo. Let the fornicators pay the price of their actions. I have always paid the price of mine.
This assumes that bringing an unwanted child into existence is preferable to not. This thinking must change.  A woman's "wants" should not be preferred over a man's.  I don't know why they are.

I have to get to work. Until this evening...  If it serves any purpose, I think yours, and LW's hearts are in the right place.

 


 




Post 49

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 11:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd love to jump in on this topic, but it'll have to be another day. Until then, here are some facts from the Census Bureau that I received in a press release this week. Interesting to note that the genders in this argument can be reversed: a woman pays child support to a man for a child he wanted to raise.

Child-Support Payments

10%
Percentage of custodial parents due child support who were fathers. They
numbered 740,000.

$2.1 billion
Amount of child support received by custodial fathers in 2003; they were
due $3.3 billion. In contrast, custodial mothers received $23.3 billion of the
$33.7 billion in support that was due.

46%
Percentage of custodial fathers who received all child support that was
due, not significantly different than the corresponding percentage for
custodial mothers. Fathers received an average of $2,797 in child support
in 2003, compared with $3,579 for mothers.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh boy, Ted...somebody just has to pay for their sins, right?  Somebody owes a pound of flesh, especially if they're "sluts, harlots, fornicators and fools".

If you don't like casual, recreational sex, just say so, please.  If children are so valuable to you, then they shouldn't be considered a "price" or a cost. 

But how does this specious argument relieve a one-night stander of responsibility for his spawn...
Ted, when are you going to address the fact that it's not his spawn?  Please, just say why it's the case that if a woman controls her body, she therefore controls what goes in it.  If she lets sperm in her body, she (alone!) should be prepared for what her body is going to do; get pregnant.

I like the argument from "nature"...it's "natural" that a father stick around and raise "his" kids, right?  Given how rare monogamy is in the non-human animal kingdom, I think it's funny we're supposed to take our cues from "nature"...what's natural is a male of a species being with multiple females to encourage reproduction of the species. Damn those animals and their "deadbeat dads"!  They oughtta be brought to justice, running out on Bambi's mom and stuff...

Oh, I liked this, too, Ted...this is what I meant by anti-male bias:
Fine, let's set up a civil system of casual sex contracts where a man can force a woman to sign away her right to sue for child support
Force? FORCE??  It's just gotta be the oppressive man "forcing" a woman to sign away her "right" (and how can one have a positive "right" to something?  I only believe in negative rights, Ted) to child support, right?  You're a piece of work.  How would signing a contract be force, Ted?




Post 51

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now Steve, you do know that force has multiple senses.  I said the man should "force" the woman to sign a form releasing him of the responsibility as in require.  I was being intentionally ironic.  I am sure you are aware that the are a lot more single men desperate to get laid out there than there are desperate would-be baby-mommas.  The irony results from the fact that it would be the men who will end up being "forced" to beg the women to sign the waiver.  I think you probably got the point the first time.

To me, asking a woman to sign a waiver (or get a free-f*ck lcense) is a hell of a lot less of an interruption than trying to slip on the old prophylactic, and it would free the man from risk of being sued for support by the woman - assuming she can show she has the resources to fully provide for a child, making the child no burden on the state - exactly what you want.  I don't understand why you'd be against getting a waiver in writing first.

Does anyone on Steve or Teresa's side want this situation, but oppose instituting waivers or licenses for women to absolve men of paternal duty?

As for pound of flesh, who's trying to inflict punishment here?  All I'm talking about is financial responsibility.  I don't care who does what to whom, silly.  I just don't want the state to have to deal with a mess left by an irresponsible man who had sex out of wedlock with a woman who might bear a child while being unable to support that child.  This is no different from requiring a company to clean up its own industrial accidents, or an AIDS victim to pay for his own medical care.  Should a man be able to go around getting buggered bareback by whom he likes with only their promise that they are clean, and then get medicaid saying "but he told me he was negative!" This is a much more relevant analogy than what happens in the animal kingdom.

As for anti-male bias, unless you consider yourself a male, and me as biased against you, I still don't see it.  Remember, I'd hold both people equally responsible for supporting the child - all other things being equal. 

Ted Keer





Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted said:

As for pound of flesh, who's trying to inflict punishment here?  All I'm talking about is financial responsibility. 
I know. The problem I have with this is that it assumes the state should have a say in the issue of "responsibility." 

Welfare's been around for a very long time, and I can see how it has filtered into popular thought.  People just take it for granted that the state will step in if someone "needs" something. Especially if that someone is a child.  Responsibility is a personal value. It can't be procured by force.

There really isn't a need for contracts. The state just needs to butt out. People will figure out how to solve their personal problems all on their own. They don't need the government to help them out.  Pregnancy and child rearing aren't violent attacks, or wonton theft. These circumstances are not violations of rights.

I understand all of the fears Ted and LW probably have. Starving, shoeless children begging on street corners... or worse, a bigger, badder full blown welfare state, I get it.  I also get that most people are not at all prepared to deal with complete responsibility for their lives. The government just takes care of too much stuff, stuff we take completely for granted. 

If we keep perpetuating the idea that government is somehow responsible for compelling personal responsibility, nothing will ever change, and we'll keep having this discussion for ever and ever.  I don't want that.




Post 53

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Exactly, Teresa. And if a civilized state has garbage collection, dog-catchers, and measures such as quaratine (however privatized, administered, and minimal) to protect the public health and order, then are humans less important than garbage? Are orphaned urchins less dangerous than dogs? Are abandoned children no less a curse on a civil society than a plague?

The state is not initiating force when it requires biological parents to support their children. It is protecting the rights of children. Rights which most people here believe begin at birth. And it is protecting the public from those who would litter the world with their nine-month-ripened soiled bedsheets.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/24, 7:52pm)




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, for the last time, women can abort fetuses they don't want to grow up into children. If a woman doesn't want or cannot support a child, abortion/adoption is the answer.  No more street urchins.

Men aren't responsible for women put into their bodies.

It's obvious that you're going to continue to be deliberately obtuse and irrational on this subject.  I've posited a number of questions you haven't answered. You can continue in your medieval philosophy of "punishing" people for sex you don't like. 

I know I am right about this, and I know you're wrong, and I've proven it.

End discussion.




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 3:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are abandoned children no less a curse on a civil society than a plague?
Why do you think children would be abandoned?  I think fewer children will suffer this fate if the law ever changes, not more!  If you go back before abortion was legal, before adoption was streamlined and "open," (shoot, mothers can even pick out their baby's new parents! They can stay connected to their child throughout their lives if they choose! It's not like it was in the 50's anymore) you'll find that there were fewer abandoned children than there are now. Fewer cases of criminal neglect, less need for foster care parents.

My brother in law was adopted. My husband was adopted, but stayed connected with is biological mother and siblings throughout his life. People will figure it out! They don't need the government to make decisions for them!

And Ted, if you don't think you're paying through the nose for the system as it exists now, you're mistaken. 




Post 56

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit




Post 57

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 3:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Any bets that this photo wasn't taken in the US, but in some third world dictatorial, cleptocratic hell hole? 

How about showing a picture of some US dudes sitting in jail because they lost their jobs and a big chunk of hope?

How do you take a picture of social engineering?






Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.