Freethought & Rationalism Archive

snatchbalance · 05-31-2002, 06:36 AM

Jamie

Quote:

It's like joint ownership in a house. One owner can't just sell his part of the house without approval of the other owner, and it isn't ethical for one owner to just run off and leave all the financial burden on the other owner.

Yes, but normaly both parties enter into such an agreement voluntarily. One cannot be forced to buy into a house if one dosen't want to.

SB

Jamie_L · 05-31-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by snatchbalance:
Yes, but normaly both parties enter into such an agreement voluntarily. One cannot be forced to buy into a house if one dosen't want to.

Of course the analogy doesn't hold on all sides.

But people do have sex voluntarily (in all the scenarios we've discussed), which is the point.

Jamie

99Percent · 05-31-2002, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
<strong>But people do have sex voluntarily (in all the scenarios we've discussed), which is the point.

Jamie</strong>

People have sex voluntarily but not always with the intention of having children.

tronvillain · 05-31-2002, 01:34 PM

Which is of course why I think men should have the same ability to opt out as women.

snatchbalance · 05-31-2002, 03:00 PM

Current U.S. social norms, the way I see them:

1. If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to carry the fetus to full term, or not.

2. If the child is born:

i. the mother can keep the child
ii. the mother can put the child up for adoption.

3. She keeps the child:

i. if paternity can be established, the man is held liable, weather he desired fatherhood or not.
ii. if paternity cannot be established, society will, if needed, support the mother and child.

4. If she puts the child up for adoption:

i. the father, if he wants the child, must seek legal redress to assume custody.
ii. the father and mother forfit parental rights.

tronvillain · 05-31-2002, 03:29 PM

Sounds about right, though of course I'd want to change 3.i and 4.i a bit. If a mother chooses to have a child despite the father's wishes, he shouldn't be responsible.

snatchbalance · 05-31-2002, 04:17 PM

tron,

I think that the root of the problem(issue?) is that men will seek sex no matter what the consequences may or may not be. Women can establish the mating groundrules with impunity.

And they know it.

SB

tronvillain · 05-31-2002, 08:30 PM

Oh please, you think the laws couldn't possibly be rewritten?

snatchbalance · 06-01-2002, 03:47 AM

Tron,

Quote:

Oh please, you think the laws couldn't possibly be rewritten?

Well, I think there would be a huge problem in gaining politcal support for any meaningful reforms. Why? As simply as possible, women vote enmass for "womens" issues.(they also drag many men - who want sex- along with them)

If the socioecomonics change, so that the individual male is needed for the survival of the individual child, in other words, society does not have the means to care for the child, the situation will change. But not until then, IMHO.

SB

jfbiii · 06-01-2002, 08:49 AM

Women can't be forced to be mothers if they become pregnant despite their intention not to.

Therefore, men should not be forced to be fathers.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if fathers have to assume the risk of an unwannted pregnancy to force mothers to do the same unless the pregnancy involves more than a reasonable medical risk to the mother. Simply put, if the guy wants the baby then the woman should not be allowed to have an abortion.

Whether the normal medical risk of carrying a baby to term translates into zero financial support of an unwanted child on the part of the mother is another transaction that may or may not be reasonable.

But the current legal and moral balance is disproportionately in favor of the woman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2002, 01:34 PM	#34
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Which is of course why I think men should have the same ability to opt out as women.

05-31-2002, 03:00 PM	#35
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Current U.S. social norms, the way I see them: 1. If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to carry the fetus to full term, or not. 2. If the child is born: i. the mother can keep the child ii. the mother can put the child up for adoption. 3. She keeps the child: i. if paternity can be established, the man is held liable, weather he desired fatherhood or not. ii. if paternity cannot be established, society will, if needed, support the mother and child. 4. If she puts the child up for adoption: i. the father, if he wants the child, must seek legal redress to assume custody. ii. the father and mother forfit parental rights.

05-31-2002, 03:29 PM	#36
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Sounds about right, though of course I'd want to change 3.i and 4.i a bit. If a mother chooses to have a child despite the father's wishes, he shouldn't be responsible.

05-31-2002, 04:17 PM	#37
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	tron, I think that the root of the problem(issue?) is that men will seek sex no matter what the consequences may or may not be. Women can establish the mating groundrules with impunity. And they know it. SB

05-31-2002, 08:30 PM	#38
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Oh please, you think the laws couldn't possibly be rewritten?

06-01-2002, 08:49 AM	#40
jfbiii Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans Posts: 7	Women can't be forced to be mothers if they become pregnant despite their intention not to. Therefore, men should not be forced to be fathers. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if fathers have to assume the risk of an unwannted pregnancy to force mothers to do the same unless the pregnancy involves more than a reasonable medical risk to the mother. Simply put, if the guy wants the baby then the woman should not be allowed to have an abortion. Whether the normal medical risk of carrying a baby to term translates into zero financial support of an unwanted child on the part of the mother is another transaction that may or may not be reasonable. But the current legal and moral balance is disproportionately in favor of the woman.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.