Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In the sense that it was aquired through deception. Taken with the agreement to not produce a child, then used to produce a child.
    How is that deception? Are you talking about rape? If man and a women consensually agree to have sex and a new life is conceived, though they both don’t want to a new life to be conceived, how is that willful deception? Who is deceiving who?

    Such as if I were to borrow your shovel to dig a hole.. and then I burned the shovel instead.
    Is this analogy trying to compare the shovel to the man’s sperm that the woman's intentional consent to experience it?

    The word stolen means to take something without permission. Consensual sex means that two people agree to have sex and exchange they bodily fluids, and ideally experience something pleasurable. How do you get "stolen DNA" from the consensual sex act of a man and a woman? Perhaps if a woman rapes a man, which does happen, then I can see where a man’s DNA may be considered stolen. However in non-rape situations, which is how most sex happens, if the consequences of the bodily fluids of both the man and woman produces a new life, there’s no intentional stealing going on because there’s no choice involved on either their part as to what happens once their consensual will chooses to allow their bodily fluids to start mixing and working together. Neither the woman nor the man has any choice as to weather or not the man's sperm will enter the female ovum and begin a new life. When and if this phenomena happens once their joint fluids start mixing, this isn't “stealing,” it’s a force of nature.

    Sure, the woman has the choice to prevent conception from happening if they are educated and if they've been paying attention, but despite those attempted actions to prevent a new life from being conceived, a new life can still be conceived. And when or if a new life is conceived this isn’t because the woman has intentionally stolen a man’s DNA, but it’s because the nature works in some ways that we simply cannot control.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #42
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe it's time for me to do what I did in the last debate and forward your argument, as I understand it, via a logic chain. I don't claim that I will get it perfectly right but then that will show where a misunderstanding may be and allow you to correct it before it bogs us down. So feel free to alter my logic chain as you need to but ideally do it as little as possible - just enough to get it right.

    PREMISE - A man has to consent to an obligation before he can legitimately have an obligation.
    FACT 1 - When a man and a woman have sex, the man may not want to have the child and may communicate this fact to the woman and she may agree that no child shall be produced.
    FACT 2 - Given the above scenario, if the woman gives birth to a child, the man did not consent to the child being born.
    THEREFORE - Given the premise and Fact 2, the man should not have an obligation to the child.
    I believe a more accurate chain can be stated thus:

    P1: A person must give fully informed, voluntary consent based on accurate information, or that consent is invalid.
    P2: A person can be said to have responsibility for an action or a choice if they gave consent to do so as defined above.
    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to an action prior to the action takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.
    P4: A man who uses contraception or otherwise makes his lack of desire for children known can reasonably be assumed to have engaged in sexual intercourse on the understanding that both parties understand that he does not want children and would not consent to sex if such a union would produce children.
    P5: According to the pro-choice position, bearing a child into the world is a choice that only a woman can make. She makes this choice every morning she wakes up knowing that she is pregnant and does not have an abortion.
    P6: Consent to have sex obtained by deceiving a man as to one's intention to have children - i.e. choosing to have a child instead of an abortion - is obtained through fraudulent means, and this invalidates any claims that the man had consensual sex.

    Conclusion: If a woman who becomes pregnant, despite clearly stated or demonstrated intention not to have children on the part of the man, and chooses to have the child anyway, she assumes full responsibility for the child that results, as she is the only person that made a fully informed, consensual decision to have the child and the man's consent is considered invalid as it was obtained by fraudulent means.

    ---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    How is that deception? Are you talking about rape? If man and a women consensually agree to have sex and a new life is conceived, though they both don’t want to a new life to be conceived, how is that willful deception? Who is deceiving who?
    According to the "pro-choice" position, a woman who has a child has made a choice to do so by choosing to remain pregnant and carrying the child to term. In the case where contraception is used, it is clearly obvious that the man does not want children and would not give consent to have sex if he knew that the woman would choose to have a child resulting from the action. Therefore, if she chooses to have the child, she has willfully deceived the man as to her intention not to have children, thus invalidating his consent to having had sex in the first place. Since the man can now be said to have had non-consensual sex, having given his consent under fraudulent terms, this can constitute one definition of rape. Even if that is not the case, however, the pro-choice position has only one logical conclusion: the woman has a choice to remain pregnant or not. Since the woman is the only person who made a fully informed choice to have a child, she is the only person who bears responsibility for that child, since the man did not consent to fatherhood and would not have had sex had he known that fatherhood would result.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    According to the "pro-choice" position, a woman who has a child has made a choice to do so by choosing to remain pregnant and carrying the child to term. In the case where contraception is used, it is clearly obvious that the man does not want children and would not give consent to have sex if he knew that the woman would choose to have a child resulting from the action. Therefore, if she chooses to have the child, she has willfully deceived the man as to her intention not to have children,
    I can understand that some women may intentionally do this in order to get pregnant, but is that the norm and is that how most women get prengant and is that what the OP is about?

    The position of the OP seems to be: "I claim that a man CAN refuse forced fatherhood in three different ways, but he must refuse being a father by taking action BEFORE he has sex with a woman, and BEFORE a child is conceived." which I would tend to agree with as being a reasonable position.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And the woman let him use the condom so she likewise expressed that she did not want the child either
    She clearly changed her mind by not having an abortion, that decision doesn't inherently obligate the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And again, his obligation is to the child, not her. The child exists because of actions he took and those actions give him a responsibility to the child.
    Not really, it was fully the womans actions. It is the choices she made with "her body". There is no connection to the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't offer a comparison. I used an example to show that one does not have to consent to an obligation to receive it. You said "sure" so I will assume that my point is agreed to.
    In an exchange of property.. they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What actions has the woman taken that creates an obligation for the man to the child?

    And how does that remove the obligation he originally created for himself?
    He doesn't have an inherent obligation, you have to establish that with reason beyond simply asserting it.
    .. please don't make me repeat that again by ignoring that point.

    The problem is, she doesn't and CAN'T take any action to creat an obligation to the man.. that is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say that you only stated opinion. I'm saying your argument is ultimately opinion-based. Really, ANY argument about whether a man has an obligation will be opinion based.
    That is just your opinion



    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, your argument is based on assumptions as well.

    Maybe it's time for me to do what I did in the last debate and forward your argument, as I understand it, via a logic chain. I don't claim that I will get it perfectly right but then that will show where a misunderstanding may be and allow you to correct it before it bogs us down. So feel free to alter my logic chain as you need to but ideally do it as little as possible - just enough to get it right.
    It may be true that my position is based on assumptions, but I'm trying to make the fewest with the fewest anomoly assumptions.

    This is a "property" chain of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    PREMISE - A man has to consent to an obligation before he can legitimately have an obligation
    FACT 1 - When a man and a woman have sex, the man may not want to have the child and may communicate this fact to the woman and she may agree that no child shall be produced.
    FACT 2 - Given the above scenario, if the woman gives birth to a child, the man did not consent to the child being born.
    THEREFORE - Given the premise and Fact 2, the man should not have an obligation to the child.
    I'll borrow from Talthas

    Quote Originally Posted by TALTHAS
    P1: A person must give fully informed, voluntary consent based on accurate information, or that consent is invalid.
    P2: A person can be said to have responsibility for an action or a choice if they gave consent to do so as defined above.
    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to an action prior to the action takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.
    P4: A man who uses contraception or otherwise makes his lack of desire for children known can reasonably be assumed to have engaged in sexual intercourse on the understanding that both parties understand that he does not want children and would not consent to sex if such a union would produce children.
    P5: According to the pro-choice position, bearing a child into the world is a choice that only a woman can make. She makes this choice every morning she wakes up knowing that she is pregnant and does not have an abortion.
    P6: Consent to have sex obtained by deceiving a man as to one's intention to have children - i.e. choosing to have a child instead of an abortion - is obtained through fraudulent means, and this invalidates any claims that the man had consensual sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I was speaking in a legal sense. And legally there is a default.
    Well it is the very legal practices being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think you kind of stumbled in presenting that point. Can you re-state it?
    sorry, let me try again.

    Sex itself is not an obligation to HAVE a child. If it were, then by refusing to have a child through abortion, a woman would be violating here inherent obligation/agreement with the man.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Or are you saying that you just aren't aware of what they use for their foundation so as far as you know, they use nothing at all? If so, that's clearly an argument from ignorance fallacy. And you can't use the lack of such foundation on ODN as support that they don't exist at all. If you are claiming that they don't exist in the world outside of ODN, then you have to consider what may exist outside of ODN when factoring the likelihood of their existence.
    Here I say that there is iether none, or non sufficient.
    I'm arguing against the logical ability for one to exist. Thre may be one, but one can't assume there is without presenting one.


    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    How is that deception? Are you talking about rape? If man and a women consensually agree to have sex and a new life is conceived, though they both don’t want to a new life to be conceived, how is that willful deception? Who is deceiving who?
    Please see Talthas' post above.. He does a very good job of pointing it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    Is this analogy trying to compare the shovel to the man’s sperm that the woman's intentional consent to experience it?

    The word stolen means to take something without permission. Consensual sex means that two people agree to have sex and exchange they bodily fluids, and ideally experience something pleasurable. How do you get "stolen DNA" from the consensual sex act of a man and a woman? Perhaps if a woman rapes a man, which does happen, then I can see where a man’s DNA may be considered stolen. However in non-rape situations, which is how most sex happens, if the consequences of the bodily fluids of both the man and woman produces a new life, there’s no intentional stealing going on because there’s no choice involved on either their part as to what happens once their consensual will chooses to allow their bodily fluids to start mixing and working together. Neither the woman nor the man has any choice as to weather or not the man's sperm will enter the female ovum and begin a new life. When and if this phenomena happens once their joint fluids start mixing, this isn't “stealing,” it’s a force of nature.

    Sure, the woman has the choice to prevent conception from happening if they are educated and if they've been paying attention, but despite those attempted actions to prevent a new life from being conceived, a new life can still be conceived. And when or if a new life is conceived this isn’t because the woman has intentionally stolen a man’s DNA, but it’s because the nature works in some ways that we simply cannot control.
    and a woman is SINGULARLY responsible for her nature. If I poop on the floor, that is a product in part of my nature and I'm responsible for it. If a woman carries a child, that is here nature.. and she is responsible for it.

    P.S. the pro choice position is that the unborn is completely the woman's body, so the product of her body is inherently hers.. not someone else.
    To serve man.

  5. #45
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I can understand that some women may intentionally do this in order to get pregnant, but is that the norm and is that how most women get prengant and is that what the OP is about?
    My point is that in a world where we allow abortion to happen, any woman who chooses to continue to be pregnant and carry a child to successful delivery has materially deceived her lover about whether or not she wants to be pregnant, by simple virtue of the fact that she chooses not to have an abortion. Since this is the case, it cannot fairly be said that a man who used contraception and clearly does not want children has given informed consent to sex, if the woman who becomes pregnant anyway chooses to continue to be pregnant. She clearly *did* want kids, and we can reasonably assume that a man who uses contraception and doesn't want kids wouldn't have sex with a woman if he knew that she intended to have children with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic
    The position of the OP seems to be: "I claim that a man CAN refuse forced fatherhood in three different ways, but he must refuse being a father by taking action BEFORE he has sex with a woman, and BEFORE a child is conceived." which I would tend to agree with as being a reasonable position.
    I say that this is *not* a reasonable position, given that the reality is that we do allow women to have abortions, and therefore the decision to remain pregnant and carry a child to delivery is divorced from the initial voluntary action of sex. A man who chooses to have consensual sex with a woman who agrees to use contraception consented to have sex... not to be a father. Since the only person making a choice to be a parent is the woman, who chooses not to have an abortion every day she continues to carry her fetus to term, she is the only person who bears responsibility for that choice, since the father's consent was obtained through fraudulent means.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    and a woman is SINGULARLY responsible for her nature.]
    Her natural biological nature does not include sperm in her ovum. Sperm in a woman's ovum is not her natural biological state. Sure, she can choose to allow her natural biological state to be altered by allowing fluids that are not natural to her biological state to mingle with hers, but this is not stealing, is it? She has consented to allowing those fluids that are not part of her natural biology to mingle with hers.


    P.S. the pro choice position is that the unborn is completely the woman's body, so the product of her body is inherently hers.. not someone else.
    I understand the position.

    ---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    My point is that in a world where we allow abortion to happen, any woman who chooses to continue to be pregnant and carry a child to successful delivery has materially deceived her lover about whether or not she wants to be pregnant, by simple virtue of the fact that she chooses not to have an abortion. Since this is the case, it cannot fairly be said that a man who used contraception and clearly does not want children has given informed consent to sex, if the woman who becomes pregnant anyway chooses to continue to be pregnant. She clearly *did* want kids, and we can reasonably assume that a man who uses contraception and doesn't want kids wouldn't have sex with a woman if he knew that she intended to have children with him.

    I say that this is *not* a reasonable position, given that the reality is that we do allow women to have abortions, and therefore the decision to remain pregnant and carry a child to delivery is divorced from the initial voluntary action of sex. A man who chooses to have consensual sex with a woman who agrees to use contraception consented to have sex... not to be a father. Since the only person making a choice to be a parent is the woman, who chooses not to have an abortion every day she continues to carry her fetus to term, she is the only person who bears responsibility for that choice, since the father's consent was obtained through fraudulent means.
    The problem I have with this argument is that I don’t think it’s a black and white issue—especially when it comes to trying to pin down the responsibility of point A or point B. Some women and teenagers consensually have sex with absolutely no intention of wanting to conceive a child – none at all -- zero. It’s not even on their radar. But I’m sure you understand, being a doctor, that once conception happens in a woman, through consensual sex, that this can change a woman/young adult in many different ways, including her orientation and her psychology. A bonding process begins to develop with the new life and her clear intentions before the sex and not wanting to have a child are now influenced by a developing child inside her. Bonding is a very powerful and real process that can happen during pregnancy.

    When and if she chooses to allow her pregnancy to continue, sure she is willfully taking on the responsibility to carry the child that she had no intention of having and, yes, she is changing her view to have a child. But was having sex with her partner and consensually agreeing to not wanting to conceive willfully and intentionally deceiving him? She didn’t want to conceive. She didn’t want to have a child. She wasn't ready to have a child. she just wanted to have sex like he did without any consequences. That was the clear intention. However, her new biological state has now changed her natural instincts and her internal environment.

    When and if that happens, I agree that she is intentionally taking on the responsibility for the child, but I don't see this circumstance as deceptive when it happens, and it does happen because conception can change a woman. As far as the responsibility of the man in such cases, I think it's a very tough judgment call though legally, I don't think he should be held responsible, but not because he was deceived. Morally, I might have a different view.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  7. #47
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The problem I have with this argument is that I don’t think it’s a black and white issue—especially when it comes to trying to pin down the responsibility of point A or point B. Some women and teenagers consensually have sex with absolutely no intention of wanting to conceive a child – none at all -- zero. It’s not even on their radar. But I’m sure you understand, being a doctor, that once conception happens in a woman, through consensual sex, that this can change a woman in many different ways, including her orientation and her psychology. A bonding process begins to develop with the new life and her clear intentions before the sex and not wanting to have a child are now influenced by a developing child inside her. Bonding is a very powerful and real process that can happen during pregnancy.

    When and if she chooses to allow her pregnancy to continue, sure she is willfully taking on the responsibility to carry the child that she had no intention of having and, yes, she is changing her view to have a child. But was having sex with her partner and consensually agreeing to not wanting to conceive willfully and intentionally deceiving him? She didn’t want to conceive. She didn’t want to have a child. She wasn't ready to have a child. However, her new biological state has now changed her natural instincts and her internal environment.
    The pro-life position is very consistent with this dilemma and does not have the internal inconsistencies or inherent injustices of the pro-choice position, which does not take into account any emotional attachment on the part of the mother. It's only once you acknowledge that a fetus is an inherently valuable entity which nature did not intend to be terminated (as evidenced by the bonding of which you speak) that this has any place in the discussion... and this precludes, at the very least, the "hard-line" pro-choice position.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic
    When and if that happens, I agree that she is intentionally taking on the responsibility for the child, but I don't see this circumstance as deceptive when it happens, and it does happen because conception can change a woman. As far as the responsibility of the man in such cases, I think it's a very tough judgment call though legally, I don't think he should be held responsible, but not because he was deceived. Morally, I might have a different view.
    It may not be "deceptive," per se... but it's still only the woman who can make a choice as to whether or not a child is born, and as such, she is the only person who should be forced to bear the burden of that responsibility if she chooses to continue to be pregnant, so long as abortions are legal.

    Morally, it is a very different matter, at least from my perspective, since abortion constitutes murder.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    To help simplify things a bit, I'm going to adopt the persona of a typical pro-choicer (not much of a stretch) and adhere what I believe are common pro-choice moral positions.
    1. The right to life is obtained at birth
    2. A man has an obligation to his children.

    If you forward something that I believe a typical pro-choicer will disagree with, I will disagree with it - unless of course you provide a supported argument that forces me to agree with it given my pro-choice philosophy.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    She clearly changed her mind by not having an abortion, that decision doesn't inherently obligate the man.
    No. It's his decision to have sex with her is what obligated him to the child that resulted.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not really, it was fully the womans actions. It is the choices she made with "her body". There is no connection to the man.
    And likewise has no effect on his obligation to his child (if a child born)


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In an exchange of property.. they do.
    As well as in other circumstances as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    He doesn't have an inherent obligation, you have to establish that with reason beyond simply asserting it.
    .. please don't make me repeat that again by ignoring that point.
    I'm not asserting it as a fact. I'm saying that it is my (the pro-choice) viewpoint that he does have an inherent obligation. Unless you can show me that my position is wrong or I must reject it to stay consistent with the pro-choice position, I will continue to hold it.

    And likewise it stands that a pro-choicer can hold that a man has an inherent obligation to the children he sires.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is, she doesn't and CAN'T take any action to creat an obligation to the man.. that is the problem
    Why is that a problem? Neither of them have an obligation to each other. But they both have an obligation to the child.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is just your opinion
    Well, I'll invoke the elephant in the room and say that I have yet to see you forward an argument for your position that I believe is not rooted in opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'll borrow from Talthas
    Okay. And I will respond to that post after I'm finished with this one and you can address my responses to Talthas.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well it is the very legal practices being discussed.
    And we probably should not discuss them overall. We are debating "should" not "is".




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sex itself is not an obligation to HAVE a child. If it were, then by refusing to have a child through abortion, a woman would be violating here inherent obligation/agreement with the man.
    I don't argue that sex creates an obligation between the couple to have a child.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here I say that there is iether none, or non sufficient.
    I'm arguing against the logical ability for one to exist. Thre may be one, but one can't assume there is without presenting one.
    And you likewise cannot assume that one does not exist just because one has not been presented in this thread.

    If you want to present a supported argument that such a thing cannot exist (due to an inherent contradiction in its existence or some other valid argument), I will rebut it when I see it.

    But let me take a look at your "foundation".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As a christian the REASON I belive you have an obligation to YOUR children (all of them) is because that obligation exists as an inherent part of the ENTIRE creation process.
    on my view a man has an obligation to provide for the well being of the PREGNANT woman and do his best to protect even his unborn child.
    All you did was say "As a Christian" and then stated your beliefs on the matter. A pro-choicer can do that just as easily. "As a Christian, I believe a man has an obligation to his born children" and I see no reason that one cannot be as sincere in that statement as you are with yours.




    ---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I believe a more accurate chain can be stated thus:

    P1: A person must give fully informed, voluntary consent based on accurate information, or that consent is invalid.
    P2: A person can be said to have responsibility for an action or a choice if they gave consent to do so as defined above.
    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to an action prior to the action takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.
    I'll stop you here and present the premise FOR a man's responsibility for his child.

    Premise - A man gains the obligation to his child when he conceives the child through sexual intercourse.

    So the "act" that gives man the obligation is "sexual intercourse". So to restate P3 with that being made clear, we get:

    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to sexual intercourse prior to sexual intercourse takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.

    So that would mean that the man did not consent to sex - in short he was raped by the woman. Yes, in that scenario I believe an argument could be made that the man should not have to take responsibility for the resulting child or at least it would be unjust to force him to.

    But your logic chain does not apply to consensual sexual intercourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    P4: A man who uses contraception or otherwise makes his lack of desire for children known can reasonably be assumed to have engaged in sexual intercourse on the understanding that both parties understand that he does not want children and would not consent to sex if such a union would produce children.
    If you intentionally have sex, you consented to have sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    P5: According to the pro-choice position, bearing a child into the world is a choice that only a woman can make. She makes this choice every morning she wakes up knowing that she is pregnant and does not have an abortion.

    P6: Consent to have sex obtained by deceiving a man as to one's intention to have children - i.e. choosing to have a child instead of an abortion - is obtained through fraudulent means, and this invalidates any claims that the man had consensual sex.
    I think you are playing around with the term "consensual sex". You either choose to have sex or it is force on you. If the man was not raped, he consented.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Conclusion: If a woman who becomes pregnant, despite clearly stated or demonstrated intention not to have children on the part of the man, and chooses to have the child anyway, she assumes full responsibility for the child that results, as she is the only person that made a fully informed, consensual decision to have the child and the man's consent is considered invalid as it was obtained by fraudulent means.
    Again, if he consented to sex, then he created the obligation for himself.

    ----------------------------

    And on top of that, even if I were to accept your argument and agree that a man should have the option of not paying child support, I would agree to that even if I were pro-life and therefore your argument does not offer a unique criticism of the pro-choice position.

    Let's look at 1-4 again.


    P1: A person must give fully informed, voluntary consent based on accurate information, or that consent is invalid.
    P2: A person can be said to have responsibility for an action or a choice if they gave consent to do so as defined above.
    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to an action prior to the action takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.
    P4: A man who uses contraception or otherwise makes his lack of desire for children known can reasonably be assumed to have engaged in sexual intercourse on the understanding that both parties understand that he does not want children and would not consent to sex if such a union would produce children.


    So if abortion were outlawed and a man made it clear that he should have no responsibility to any children that may result from sex, the woman gets pregnant and doesn't have an abortion because abortion isn't allowed, the man was still denied the ability to consent to the pregnancy and should still be let off the hook.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    It may not be "deceptive," per se... but it's still only the woman who can make a choice as to whether or not a child is born, and as such, she is the only person who should be forced to bear the burden of that responsibility if she chooses to continue to be pregnant, so long as abortions are legal.
    The possible subtle deception that may be going on is the belief that we can control the consequences of our actions. But that would hold true for both the man and the woman.

    Morally, it is a very different matter, at least from my perspective, since abortion constitutes murder.
    From a moral perspective, not legal, do you think in such cases, the man should consider taking on some responsibility for the child when it is born?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    Her natural biological nature does not include sperm in her ovum. Sperm in a woman's ovum is not her natural biological state. Sure, she can choose to allow her natural biological state to be altered by allowing fluids that are not natural to her biological state to mingle with hers, but this is not stealing, is it? She has consented to allowing those fluids that are not part of her natural biology to mingle with hers.
    Neither is food in your belly and the fecal mater that it produces.
    It is a process, but it is YOUR process.
    To serve man.

  11. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is a process, but it is YOUR process.
    I assume we both agree that pregnancy is a process. Do you agree that the pregnancy process cannot naturally begin in women without sperm?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  12. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. It's his decision to have sex with her is what obligated him to the child that resulted.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And likewise has no effect on his obligation to his child (if a child born)
    It does your just denying it or not recognizing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not asserting it as a fact. I'm saying that it is my (the pro-choice) viewpoint that he does have an inherent obligation. Unless you can show me that my position is wrong or I must reject it to stay consistent with the pro-choice position, I will continue to hold it.

    And likewise it stands that a pro-choicer can hold that a man has an inherent obligation to the children he sires.
    There is no reason to think that there is an inherent obligation to the result of another persons choices with your property that has become their own or is used in a way that was not consented to.
    That applies to every other situation and there is no cause for an exception here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Why is that a problem? Neither of them have an obligation to each other. But they both have an obligation to the child.
    So.. that isn't what I was referencing. I didn't mention an obligation to her.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Well, I'll invoke the elephant in the room and say that I have yet to see you forward an argument for your position that I believe is not rooted in opinion.
    That's an interesting opion you have there. it is duely noted

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't argue that sex creates an obligation between the couple to have a child.
    Fair enough.. what obligates a man to a specific child?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you likewise cannot assume that one does not exist just because one has not been presented in this thread.
    I certainly can, and that is the reasonable starting place especially when dealing with OBLIGATION.
    The burden is on the one who says obligation exists not the other way around.
    One should not be required to debunk an obligation that is a guilty until proven innocent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    All you did was say "As a Christian" and then stated your beliefs on the matter. A pro-choicer can do that just as easily. "As a Christian, I believe a man has an obligation to his born children" and I see no reason that one cannot be as sincere in that statement as you are with yours.
    Well, I'm not really trying to forward the christian position here, i was simply stating what I thought to be the condition of the christian position, that with fewer assumptions or more fundamental assumptions one can produce a more comprehensive and consistent world view.
    Agree... disagree.. it isn't really relevant to this portion, but it may shed some light of what I'm looking for.

    ---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    I assume we both agree that pregnancy is a process. Do you agree that the pregnancy process cannot naturally begin in women without sperm?
    Yes, I agree. .. well, didn't they make a baby with two sperm in a test tube?
    Anyway.. the question remains. If the unborn is "a part" of the woman's body.. in what way is it "the mans' child? And does shared DNA mean that there is an inherent obligation? If so, then all sperm donors in any form have an obligation yes?
    To serve man.

  13. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I don't think that it has been adequately established that, given the refusal of consent for creating a child when a man makes it clearly known that he does not wish to have a child, that there should be any obligation whatsoever on the part of the man, moral, legal or otherwise. Again, this is ignoring current case law on the matter, as this is all in the hypothetical, and this is an argument being made to demonstrate the inconsistency and the inherent injustice in the pro-choice position as it relates to the rights of men.
    Why is this injustice inherent to the pro-choice position. If we accept that a man does not have an obligation to his children, then that can be accepted if one is pro-life as well as pro-choice.

    I guess you don't have to oblige me, but I would like to forward that a man has an obligation to the children that he conceives as a premise and it cannot be rejected unless an argument, based on the pro-choice position, conflicts with it.

    I mean that is your goal right? To show that the notion that a man has an obligation to his children is inconsistent with the notion that life begins at birth instead of conception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The fact remains that she has a legal remedy by which she can totally abdicate any parental responsibility, where the man does not.
    To be clear, she has the ability to remove both of their responsibilities.

    And the fact that his responsibility can be removed does not alleviate his responsibility if it isn't removed. And the refusal to remove the responsibility does not create additional responsibility.

    As an analogy, if I loaned you a thousands dollars and we agreed that you would pay me a a hundred a month, you would have an obligation to pay me monthly until the debt is fully paid off. Every day I would have the option of forgiving the debt and relieving you of your obligation to me. But my continuing choice to not remove your obligation does not create any additional obligation for you. You created the obligation when you borrowed the money just as a man creates an obligation to the child when he conceives it and there is nothing inherently wrong of others making a choice to not dismiss the obligation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Furthermore, if she obtained his sperm consensually but based upon false pretenses (i.e. she does not want kids, understands that he does not want kids, and would be willing to abort any fetus resulting from the pregnancy), then she *did* effectively commit theft because the man did not give informed consent. Any other case involving legal consent would find that such pretexts, if false, would constitute a material breech of contract or theft on the part of the woman, since she obtained something through fraudulent means by lying about her intentions when the action initially occurred. I see no compelling reason to treat sex any differently, especially if the man makes it clear from the start that he does not want children.
    And again, that reveals no flaw in the pro-choice position. The argument is equally persuasive to a pro-lifer as a pro-choicer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    According to the pro-choice position, the woman necessarily consents every day she wakes up knowing she's pregnant and decides not to have an abortion.
    Which does not alter the fact that the man consented to sex, which, by current moral and legal reasoning is adequate to obtain the responsibility to the child that results.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    You can't have it both ways; either the child doesn't exist before it's born and therefore consent irrelevant, or the child does exist, making consent a relevant factor on behalf of both parties who have no choice in the matter. Since the pro-choice position here assumes that there is no child prior to delivery, It also makes any responsibility that would hypothetically be assumed for the child prior to delivery a non-issue.
    Right. The man has no responsibility to the child before there is a child.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    There is no responsibility or choice at all on the part of the man or the child prior to delivery, but the woman makes a conscious choice every day to continue being pregnant when she doesn't have to. The man has no such opportunity to make such a choice, even if he clearly did not want children and would not have had sex had he known that the woman would carry a pregnancy to term if she became pregnant. If the woman is constantly making the choice to have a child after she knows that the man does not want children, then she should assume all responsibility for the choice that is made. If you're the only one who can make a choice, then you're the only one who can have responsibility for that choice. And according to the "pro-choice" position, being pregnant and choosing to have a child instead of an abortion is the woman's choice alone. The logical consequence is clear: the man has zero responsibility for any child he does not want, since he did not consent to having sex with a woman who would carry a child to term and has no choice to abort the child prior to delivery.
    You just seem to be gliding over the thing that people in general believes gives the man his obligation - his decision to have sex that resulted in the child.

    I see no reason to agree that her ability to make a choice that he cannot make in between conception and birth that can result in the child not existing should effect this.

    I think you need to develop a logic chain for this. And if it relieves the man of his responsibility regardless of whether the woman can abort or not, then it does show a flaw in pro-choice belief.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    In the pro-choice position, I believe that it is very reasonable to say that the man is the victim of a grave injustice, since he is being held responsible for a choice he did not make with full, informed consent. If a man makes it known that he does not wish to have children and the woman, knowing this fact, continues to make a choice to be pregnant, then she obtained consent for sex by fraudulent means... and by some definitions, that actually constitutes non-consensual sex... or rape.
    And again, this "injustice" to the man would exist if the woman could not have an abortion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Essentially, if this standard were being enforced upon a woman, it would be tantamount to saying that a woman who accepts a drink from a man who then rapes her while she is unconscious is responsible for the child that results and must keep it if he wants children.
    I'm sorry but I do not confuse consensual sex with rape. If he chose to have sex, he was not raped. I find this attempt to confuse the two slightly offensive and ask that it not be forwarded again. If it is, I will likely not respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Another parallel example would be to say that a person who deceives their partner about having HIV bears no responsibility to a victim who chooses to have sex with them if he contracts HIV himself. He didn't have to have sex with her, and he should have known that having sex with her could have resulted in an STD. He made the choice when he had sex... and it doesn't matter whether she was honest with him or not, because he should have known that would happen. Tough luck, I suppose.
    Except this scenario omits the very relevant factor that a man has an obligation to his child. The obligation is not to the woman.



    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    If we are talking about the pro-choice position, the only person with any moral responsibility in the matter is the woman, who continuously makes a choice to be a mother despite knowing that the father of her child does not want children. Since she obtained the means of becoming pregnant by fraudulent means in deceiving him about her intention to have children, then the man did not actually consent to being a father, whether the sex was voluntary at the time or not. Consent obtained by fraudulent means is no consent at all. Since the woman is the only person in the situation who made a fully informed and consensual choice, she is the only person who bears any responsibility for that choice.
    Again, a pro-lifer can say the same thing.

    ---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why?
    I'm just stating my belief on the matter. I will hold that position unless you can tell me why I MUST reject it (which you have claimed I must).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It does your just denying it or not recognizing it.
    Then make me recognize it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no reason to think that there is an inherent obligation to the result of another persons choices with your property that has become their own or is used in a way that was not consented to.
    I don't agree with that assessment. Once I gave it away, it was no longer my property. And once a pregnancy starts, I definitely disagree that my property is being used. I would say that my property no longer exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So.. that isn't what I was referencing. I didn't mention an obligation to her.
    You talked about her creating an obligation TO the man. Maybe you meant FOR the man. If so, I reject the notion that she created an obligation for him (since one cannot create an obligation for someone that they already have).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That's an interesting opion you have there. it is duely noted
    And I will hold to it until I'm shown otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fair enough.. what obligates a man to a specific child?
    His action in conceiving the child.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I certainly can, and that is the reasonable starting place especially when dealing with OBLIGATION.
    The burden is on the one who says obligation exists not the other way around.
    One should not be required to debunk an obligation that is a guilty until proven innocent.
    Unless one seeks to argue that the obligation does not exist.

    So you aren't challenging my belief that a man has an obligation to his children?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I'm not really trying to forward the christian position here, i was simply stating what I thought to be the condition of the christian position, that with fewer assumptions or more fundamental assumptions one can produce a more comprehensive and consistent world view.
    Agree... disagree.. it isn't really relevant to this portion, but it may shed some light of what I'm looking for.
    Well, I even reject the notion that a Christian basis for a moral position is inherently superior to a purely secular basis.

    So unless we are really going to get back into the objective vs. subjective morality debate, this line of debate should be dropped.
    Last edited by mican333; March 9th, 2014 at 08:27 PM.

  14. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, I agree. .. well, didn't they make a baby with two sperm in a test tube?
    I don’t know.
    Anyway.. the question remains. If the unborn is "a part" of the woman's body.. in what way is it "the mans' child?
    I would think in the way that there would be no developing unborn without his intended sperm in consensual sex. Just because a man may not want the child, this does not mean the developing child is not a part of him biologically. Just like a woman who does not want a child (unwanted pregnancy), this does not mean the developing unborn is not a life that should not be protected.

    And does shared DNA mean that there is an inherent obligation?
    Well, let's consider where we have precedence to observe. Don’t most father’s who want children think they have an inherent obligation to their developing unborn children who have begun their process of developing with their DNA? If a man doesn’t want any responsibility to the consequences of his DNA mingling with other fluids from consensual sex, he can sign off on it, which some do.
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 9th, 2014 at 06:23 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  15. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm just stating my belief on the matter. I will hold that position unless you can tell me why I MUST reject it (which you have claimed I must).
    As you have no reason to belive it, then you must accept my alternative, which I'll state here.
    Sex does not obligate a person to that which it produces, because a man nor woman is obligated to provide for the unborn.
    The unborn is the same object and it's change to a person doesn't "create" obligations. This is evident by Sperm donors (at a bank) where they do not have an obligation.
    Further the view that it is the womans body puts the responsibilty on her and puts the burden on the man to justify any desire for obligation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't agree with that assessment. Once I gave it away, it was no longer my property. And once a pregnancy starts, I definitely disagree that my property is being used. I would say that my property no longer exists.
    Then it isn't "your" child that results it is "her" child. (see above) this stands as reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You talked about her creating an obligation TO the man. Maybe you meant FOR the man. If so, I reject the notion that she created an obligation for him (since one cannot create an obligation for someone that they already have).
    Question begging.
    If you don't wish to discuss the topic that is fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I will hold to it until I'm shown otherwise.
    You are free to hold to it even after being shown otherwise, that is the great thing about opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    His action in conceiving the child.
    The woman conceives.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Unless one seeks to argue that the obligation does not exist.

    So you aren't challenging my belief that a man has an obligation to his children?
    The positoin of people is that a man has an obligation. This can not be sustained past simple assertion.
    I have offered reason why he doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, I even reject the notion that a Christian basis for a moral position is inherently superior to a purely secular basis.

    So unless we are really going to get back into the objective vs. subjective morality debate, this line of debate should be dropped.
    I thought I did.


    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    I would think in the way that there would be no developing unborn without his intended sperm in consensual sex.
    What intended sperm? The man made clear he didn't want to give his sperm by wearing a condom. Wouldn't you agree?
    Whatever she does posses is either his which she should return, or hers which he isn't obligated to what she does with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    Just like a woman who does not want a child (unwanted pregnancy), this does not mean the developing unborn is not a life that should not be protected.
    O.k. but I don't see the relevance here.

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    Well, let's consider where we have precedence to observe. Don’t most father’s who want children think they have an inherent obligation to their developing unborn children who have begun their process of developing with their DNA?
    Appeal to majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye
    If a man doesn’t want any responsibility to the consequences of his DNA mingling with other fluids from consensual sex, he can sign off on it, which some do.
    Well, then we agree, because that is all I'm arguing that a man has the right to do such a thing, specifically by making his intent clear to not desire a child and not authorize any child creation with his property.
    To serve man.

  16. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As you have no reason to belive it, then you must accept my alternative, which I'll state here.
    You have not established that I have no reason to believe it. Isn't this the point that we agreed to drop?

    Or are you still maintaining that your beliefs have a more solid foundation than my beliefs?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sex does not obligate a person to that which it produces, because a man nor woman is obligated to provide for the unborn.
    But they are obligated to provide for the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The unborn is the same object and it's change to a person doesn't "create" obligations.
    Right. The act of conceiving the child creates the obligation to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is evident by Sperm donors (at a bank) where they do not have an obligation.
    Since this is not an instance of sexual procreation, it does not apply to the notion that a man creates an obligation to a child when he chooses to have sex.

    Likewise it's an instance of an iron-clad agreement to absolve the man of any LEGAL responsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further the view that it is the womans body puts the responsibilty on her and puts the burden on the man to justify any desire for obligation.
    I don't understand this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then it isn't "your" child that results it is "her" child. (see above) this stands as reason.
    I wasn't talking about the child in my previous statement so this statement does not apply to what i was saying.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Question begging.
    If you don't wish to discuss the topic that is fine.
    It's up to you if it will be discussed (you are providing the arguments concerning the pro-choice position). But I'm not going to agree to it without an argument supporting it. Until such an argument is presented, I will reject it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are free to hold to it even after being shown otherwise, that is the great thing about opinions.
    Actually, I disagree that this is a matter of opinion. Either you have presented an argument that is not ultimately rooted in opinion or you have not presented such an argument.

    The evidence of either option exists in this thread and therefore its existence or non-existence is not a matter of opinion.

    So I am stating what I believe is a fact. I could be wrong of course but stating an incorrect fact is different than stating an opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The woman conceives.
    The both conceive. And they both have an obligation to the child.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The positoin of people is that a man has an obligation. This can not be sustained past simple assertion.
    I have offered reason why he doesn't.
    None that have stood up to rebuttal (as far as I know).

    Maybe a logic chain of your primary argument would help clarify things.
    Last edited by mican333; March 11th, 2014 at 10:10 AM.

  17. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What intended sperm? The man made clear he didn't want to give his sperm by wearing a condom. Wouldn't you agree?
    That’s a responsible choice. But would you agree that any educated man and woman also know that a condom does not guarantee a pregnancy will not occur? Aren't both the man and the women responsible for that knowledge that having consensual sex with a condom can not guarantee a pregnancy will not happen? We can try to be responsible and manage our choices, but we can’t completely control the consequences of those choices.

    O.k. but I don't see the relevance here.
    Well, just because a man may legally sign off on what happens to his DNA if it produces a child, that doesn’t mean biologically the unborn child is not a part of the man or as you said 'the man's child.' Just because he may choose to relinquish his legal responsibility of his DNA, the hard science is still there and will be there until both the child and the man pass on. They are biologically connected as father and son and/or daughter for their entire life.

    Appeal to majority.
    Isn’t it an appeal to biology and the natural procreation process of human life? Father’s are inherently obligated to their developing unborn child because naturally a part of them is developing in their partner.

    Well, then we agree, because that is all I'm arguing that a man has the right to do such a thing, specifically by making his intent clear to not desire a child and not authorize any child creation with his property.
    Yes, we agree on the bottom line -- however, as I stated earlier in the thread to Tal, I don’t think it’s a clear matter of intentional deception for those women who get pregnant and change their mind and decide to carry the child until birth. So basically, I don't agree with your reasoning that women are intentionally 'deceptive' and 'stealing' a man's DNA except for many those cases where women intentionally trick their partners into having sex because they clearly want to have a child but lie about it.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  18. #58
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [I]To help simplify things a bit, I'm going to adopt the persona of a typical pro-choicer (not much of a stretch) and adhere what I believe are common pro-choice moral positions.
    1. The right to life is obtained at birth
    2. A man has an obligation to his children.
    I'm going to stop you right there. I have shown in clear, unequivocal, logically consistent terms that premise 2 is not necessarily true. In fact, I have shown in clear, logical steps how your second premise is fundamentally incompatible with the first premise without subjecting men to an intolerable injustice and a gross imbalance of power in matters of procreative rights. I have demonstrated quite clearly the reasons why sex does not automatically equal consent to parenthood, and you have not rebutted that argument. The only argument you have made is a simple and repeated bare assertion with absolutely no supporting evidence beyond existing case law, which I was under the impression that we had disregarded for purposes of this argument, and an appeal to the majority or an appeal to tradition. Until you can demonstrably show with a valid logic chain that a man has in inherent obligation to children he does not want and that consent to sex equals consent to have a child, I will not accept these as valid inputs to your argument and will not consider them as a valid rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    No. It's his decision to have sex with her is what obligated him to the child that resulted.
    Bare assertion. He does not have an obligation to a child that he does not want if she chose to have it without his consent. Consent to sex does not equal consent to have a child. Otherwise, abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception, as long as the man wants the child, because the woman consented to have a baby when she had sex. She should have known, right? If she didn't want kids, she should have kept her legs closed. That's the standard to which you are holding men. If you refuse to hold that standard for women, then you are creating an unjust situation for which there is no recourse except to allow the man the right to divorce himself of any responsibility to a child born of that union.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And likewise has no effect on his obligation to his child (if a child born)
    You have not shown any reason why a man has an obligation to a child he does not want if the woman has the right to abort it at any time, since she is the only person who chooses to become a parent by not having an abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I'm not asserting it as a fact. I'm saying that it is my (the pro-choice) viewpoint that he does have an inherent obligation. Unless you can show me that my position is wrong or I must reject it to stay consistent with the pro-choice position, I will continue to hold it.
    You can hold the position all you like, but it has already been refuted with a valid chain of logical premises. Your only rebuttal thus far has been a bare assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And likewise it stands that a pro-choicer can hold that a man has an inherent obligation to the children he sires.
    Not without being inconsistent or being willing to subject men to a gross injustice.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Why is that a problem? Neither of them have an obligation to each other. But they both have an obligation to the child.
    The man has no obligation to a child he did not choose to create. The woman is the only person who chose to be a parent by not having an abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I'll stop you here and present the premise FOR a man's responsibility for his child.

    Premise - A man gains the obligation to his child when he conceives the child through sexual intercourse.
    I see no reason to assume this premise is true, and you have not provided one beyond bare assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    So the "act" that gives man the obligation is "sexual intercourse". So to restate P3 with that being made clear, we get:

    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to sexual intercourse prior to sexual intercourse takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.

    So that would mean that the man did not consent to sex - in short he was raped by the woman. Yes, in that scenario I believe an argument could be made that the man should not have to take responsibility for the resulting child or at least it would be unjust to force him to.
    Consent obtained by fraudulent means is not legally valid. If the woman implies that she does not wish to have a child by the man but then chooses not to have an abortion, then the consent was obtained by false pretenses and is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But your logic chain does not apply to consensual sexual intercourse.
    You have provided no good reason why it shouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I think you are playing around with the term "consensual sex". You either choose to have sex or it is force on you. If the man was not raped, he consented.
    If the consent was obtained through fraudulent means, then the consent is not valid. This is the standard by which every other law governing consent to any transaction is managed... I see no reason why it should not apply to sex, and you have not provided one.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And on top of that, even if I were to accept your argument and agree that a man should have the option of not paying child support, I would agree to that even if I were pro-life and therefore your argument does not offer a unique criticism of the pro-choice position.
    The argument is not the same. In the pro-life argument, the man and the woman both consent to the possibility of parenthood equally at the moment of sex, because the option of abortion is not present and therefore binds both partners equally. The problem with the pro-choice position is that the onus is placed only on the man, who has no recourse whatsoever after the deed is done. This creates a fundamental injustice, since the woman has every opportunity to end the pregnancy and her obligation at any time, with or without the man's consent. The man has no such option. This is the fundamental problem with the pro-choice position: it creates a blatant double standard by which men and women each are considered to have given consent to parenthood and deprives the man of every right that the woman retains until the moment of birth. It is the very definition of unequal protection under the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    So if abortion were outlawed and a man made it clear that he should have no responsibility to any children that may result from sex, the woman gets pregnant and doesn't have an abortion because abortion isn't allowed, the man was still denied the ability to consent to the pregnancy and should still be let off the hook.
    This is either a misunderstanding of my argument or a straw man fallacy. The pro-life position holds that both people are equally bound by the decision to become parents when they have sex, and this creates a balance and an inherently fair situation. The pro-choice position is either internally inconsistent or tolerates a situation in which men are, as a matter of definitions, subjected to a double standard against which women would cry out against the injustice of it if they were held to the same and forced to bear any child which they conceived.

    ---------- Post added at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    From a moral perspective, not legal, do you think in such cases, the man should consider taking on some responsibility for the child when it is born?
    Yes, but I take the pro-life position, morally speaking, except in cases where there is clear moral ambiguity, as in a clear danger to the life of the mother, rape, etc. So, I believe that both parents are equally yoked by the possibility of parenthood when they have sex, and so there is no injustice. My objection to the pro-life position is that yokes each partner unequally and creates an unjust situation where one person is deprived of rights that the other person has and is held to a different standard of consent than the other party.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  19. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,699
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Talthas,

    I started a point-by-point but I found making numerous redundant responses so I'm going to skip many points that I feel would be answered the same way or are covered by previous answers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I have shown in clear, unequivocal, logically consistent terms that premise 2 is not necessarily true.
    I haven't argued otherwise. The debate I've had, and am having with MT, as far as I can tell is the whether one can accept that premise and remain true to the pro-choice position.

    So the fact that one can reject that moral premise isn't really relevant to the issue. The issue is whether being pro-choice requires one to reject. Rejecting the premise for any other reason (such as it's provably false) does not mean that one must reject it because they are pro-choice.

    This is why I don't challenge your assertion that the premise is a bald assertion (beyond the fact that you are correct about that). My position does not require that premise to be correct. My position requires that it not be inconsistent with the pro-choice belief. Again, that is the debate I've been having with MT. It's possible you think it's about something else.



    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    He does not have an obligation to a child that he does not want if she chose to have it without his consent.
    Unless of course one accepts the premise that the act of consensual sex gives him the obligation to the child (and it a premise that we base out laws concerning parental responsibilities but that does not make it inherently correct either for the law in not correct just because it's the law).

    But yes, one does not have to agree with it since it is a bald assertion.

    And in that situation you are right. If we reject the premise, then he does not have an obligation to a child that he does not want if she chose to have it without his consent. But then does not have an obligation to a child that does not want if abortion is outlawed and she is forced to give birth to the child. Or he can consent to take responsibility for the child after it is born and then change his mind and abandon it later on. Remember, if we reject the premise, then he has no obligation to the child at all and whether he will care for it will always be his decision.

    So again, if we reject the premise that a man does not have an obligation to the child, then it doesn't matter if one is pro-choice or pro-life or if abortion is legal or illegal. The man can skip out of responsibilities to the child in any event.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    You can hold the position all you like, but it has already been refuted with a valid chain of logical premises. Your only rebuttal thus far has been a bare assertion.
    And I have rebutted your assertion.

    P1: A person must give fully informed, voluntary consent based on accurate information, or that consent is invalid.
    P2: A person can be said to have responsibility for an action or a choice if they gave consent to do so as defined above.
    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to an action prior to the action takes sole responsibility for the results of that action.


    And my premise is "The consensual sexual act gives the man the obligation to the child he sires". If you are not addressing the "sexual act" as the "action" in P3 then you are not addressing my premise.

    So P3, factoring this in, would read:

    P3: Any person who, by their choice or action, deprives another person of the ability to give informed consent to the sexual act prior to the sexual takes sole responsibility for the results of that sexual act.

    So if the scenario is that a man did consent to have sex, he was not denied the ability to give consent to sex and therefore the woman does not have to take sole responsibility.

    I know you are referring to something else, such as an agreement to produce a child and not an agreement to have sex (and they are not the same thing), but my premise is not about the agreement to produce a child but an agreement to have sex.

    And either way, even if your logic chain did succeed in showing that my premise is necessarily incorrect, then we still have the issue that it doesn't show any flaw in the pro-choice position since BOTH sides would have to reject the premise and a man can skip his obligation in any situation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The argument is not the same. In the pro-life argument, the man and the woman both consent to the possibility of parenthood equally at the moment of sex, because the option of abortion is not present and therefore binds both partners equally. The problem with the pro-choice position is that the onus is placed only on the man, who has no recourse whatsoever after the deed is done. This creates a fundamental injustice, since the woman has every opportunity to end the pregnancy and her obligation at any time, with or without the man's consent. The man has no such option. This is the fundamental problem with the pro-choice position: it creates a blatant double standard by which men and women each are considered to have given consent to parenthood and deprives the man of every right that the woman retains until the moment of birth. It is the very definition of unequal protection under the law.
    While I call that valid pro-life argument (which is not to say that I could not rebut it), I don't see the relevance to the specific debate at hand concerning a father's obligation, or lack of obligation, to his offspring.

    This thread is about whether a man can refuse fatherhood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The pro-life position holds that both people are equally bound by the decision to become parents when they have sex, and this creates a balance and an inherently fair situation.
    Which in no way gives either of them an obligation to the children they conceive. They can equally have no obligation whatsoever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The pro-choice position is either internally inconsistent or tolerates a situation in which men are, as a matter of definitions, subjected to a double standard against which women would cry out against the injustice of it if they were held to the same and forced to bear any child which they conceived.
    Women are giving a unique option to go along with their unique burden.

    The situation is inherently unfair and IMO even allowing women to have an abortion and requiring men to support their children even if they don't want the child to be born still, when added up, gives women the worst of the situation. I mean some women die in childbirth. If one is TRULY trying to make things even, they would propose that if a woman dies in childbirth, the father shall be killed shortly thereafter. Short of advocating such a law, we acknowledge that we accept a certain level of unfairness between the genders when it comes to procreation that we will not remedy (for the remedy is worse than continuing the unfairness which likewise is a principle one can invoke when defending the "unfairness" of denying men the choice in abortion).

    I know you stepped in mid-debate so perhaps are not familiar with the position I was debating so just make it clear (or at least to relay what I thought the debate was about) - MT was forwarding the argument that a pro-choicer cannot consistently hold to the position that a father has a responsibility to his children since he doesn't have a choice in whether the child is born once the child is conceived, that there is a necessary conflict between "A woman can abort a fetus" and "A man has an obligation to his children". So again, making a successful argument that a man does not have an obligation to his children does not really help for the challenge is for a reason to deny the obligation that is unique to pro-choicers (while solid logic or calling the premise a "bare assertion" applies to everyone, not just pro-choicers.

    And it's fine if you don't want to have that debate here. If you want to debate something else, just make it clear what your argument is and I may address it (I don't promise to address any argument that is forwarded but I promise to at least look it over).
    Last edited by mican333; March 11th, 2014 at 01:02 PM.

  20. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    I think there is a very nuanced argument here which is being glossed over by the pro-father side. The mother, if I am reading the court decision correctly, does not necessarily have a claim to support, but the child does. Whether his birth was consensual or not is irrelevant to his own circumstance. The child exists, for whatever reason and, therefore, his natural father, whether by consent or not, has an obligation to support the child. Now, this may seem wholly unfair, but it is absolutely just. The only absolutely innocent party is the child and it is the innocent party with the smallest voice who the court must defend.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Google forced to turn over IP addresses to Viacom
    By Netopalis in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 7th, 2008, 06:35 AM
  2. Is this the God you worship?
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: February 15th, 2007, 02:03 AM
  3. Relious freedom to refuse medical treatment for children
    By tinkerbell in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 15th, 2004, 03:28 AM
  4. Society and Fatherhood.
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 14th, 2004, 06:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •