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 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Can a man refuse forced parenthood? Can a woman refuse forced parenthood? Can a child be left at a half way house for dead? All these are very important questions, especially after the child is born. If the mother wants to keep the child, does the father have to 'own' it too? Can the mother turn her back on the child if the father wants to keep it?

    Seeing as how the father made the child too, and it is a living breathing thing, what would happen if a scientist made a cloned thing and decided that without killing it, he wanted nothing to do with it? Would the scientist have to pay for it to be cared for? Who else would pay for it to be cared for? The key factor here is money, or more importantly food and shelter and parenting. Now if the country said that it wasn't their baby, many people would leave their children out in the cold and have lots of sex and leave children in their wake, right? Now if there was a place where there was one parent and many children, like a school, would the children get their needs met? Young people and children need lots of attension, that is a need identified by the right people. Take a large family, say, with seven children. There are only two parents there, and only one is there to care for them all day long, so the amount of attension is not important, right? Seeing as how the amount of attention is not important, they could be left at a half way house to 'mingle'. So if both parents don't want the child, that is fine as long as there is some place for them to go, right?

    Now seeing as how the state needs funds, or someone else needs funds to do this, what is another 50 cents on the taxes? They could keep them all in one city where they would meet other kids like themselves, and grow up without luxuries, making for 'tougher' candidates. If they don't get all the attention they need, they have each other to befriend and there will be older kids to help play with them, recieving pocket money or something for their efforts, or latching onto the grant they get. So they will be cared for if handled right, at the half way house come school. Here they will be educated and not ill treated, living in a big picture all the time, like a boarding school. If such a place could be founded, it would produce strong idividuals capable of carrying their nation further, like any boarding school would do.

    Now how about when the mother wants to keep the child but needs child support to do that? By not sending her child to the boarding house she would be depriving them of a full childhood, and by forcing the man to pay those funds could be sent rather to the house in a less expensive way.

    Say the child wants to keep her baby, as all mothers love their children - I think - and want to keep them. Is love from a parent needed? Wouldn't they be happier growing up in a place full of other kids? Is not staying with a complaining mother and father detremental to the well being of the child? Is staying with just the mother not detremental as well, as they need to support themselves and the child in today's harsh environments? Would it not be better for their children to go to borading schools anyway? The children coming out of the borading schools are of a high caliber, usually, and accustomed to the way the state wants children raised, as they might say what they want done but it never gets done because parents think they know better, and with all the information they have, and trained people to deal with the children, there should be no problem there, but there would be a problem with the parents. So should one mother be allowed to raise a child? There is plenty more love over the other side of the fence, more time, more needs met, less abuse... it all looks so good, so, seperating single mothers from their babies is a good idea - if the man don't want it it should go to a state run boarding house, where all the needs will be met.

    Let's budget this house, how many people are there in America? I don't know, so let's take a cut out of the tax refund that people get back, that should leave plenty to go around, and send that to the boarding house. Then you would be able to give children what they need.

    When you raise a child by yourself, it costs big time. When you concentrate money to one point, it costs less when spaced out over each case. This would be one city full of the future, and what a future it would be.

    So if one man can refuse to have a child to pay for, he must pay the small tax that he and the rest of the country pays for this fine establishment. I think it will work, and it will work well.
    !! Servant of Gaia !!

  2. #22
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Another common reason that a biological father relinquishes his parental rights, is by request of the child's mother.
    Do you know that to be fact? That is to say, can you support it? I'm not aware of laws outside of my own state, but this is not allowed in Indiana, at all.

    *sorry I didn't get to this earlier, I didn't see it until just now*
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Do you know that to be fact? That is to say, can you support it? I'm not aware of laws outside of my own state, but this is not allowed in Indiana, at all.

    What I was referring to was step-parent adoption, where the custodial parent (usually the mother) remarries, and the new stepfather wants to adopt the child.

    In this case, both of the child's biological parents (custodial and non-custodial) are typically required to consent.

    If the non-custodial bio father consents to the child's adoption by the new stepfather, he automatically relinquishes all parental rights and responsibilities.

    http://www.adoptionservices.org/adop...ep_parents.htm
    .
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,952
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    I never said a woman wasn't capable of abstaining from sex.....She is perfectly capable of doing so.



    If a man never wants children, a vasectomy prevents him from ever conceiving any, which is a much simpler, and more ethical solution, than taking the chance of creating a child that would be unwanted by his/her biological father.

    By the way, a vasectomy is a very simple, outpatient procedure, that can be done in a doctor's office.



    So....telling someone you don't want something to happen, absolves you from all responsibility if it DOES happen?

    Saying "I want to have sex with you, but I don't want you to get pregnant, and have a child", is like saying "I want to drive downtown today, but I don't want to have a car accident on the way."

    If someone doesn't want to be in an accident while driving, does that absolve them from all responsibility if they cause an accident?

    I think we all know the answer to that question.

    The same thing can be said about sex and pregnancy.

    If a man doesn't want to conceive a child while having sex, does that absolve him from all responsibility if he does conceive a child?

    No.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________




    True......

    And that's the reason I proposed (in the OP) that a man and woman, could sign a legal contract together, before they have sex, in which the woman CONSENTS to the man relinquishing all of his parental rights to any child he might conceive with her.

    If the woman doesn't want to sign such an agreement, then the man shouldn't have sex with her.
    .

    I especially agree with your argument about a man walking away from a pregnant woman. Simply because he tells her he doesn't want to have children doesn't absolve him of his parental responsibilities. I may not want to take care of a pet, but if I do go out and buy a pet it is my responsibility to care for it even if I tell the shop keeper that I don't want to. If I abandon the pet, it would be completely justifiable of me to be prosecuted under animal rights laws.

    I am completely pro-choice and an avid supporter (and practioner :D) of sex before marriage, and, as of no, have no desire to have children, but once a child is born, it is the duty of BOTH parents to either care for the child, or make sure that it is cared for -e.g., put it up for adoption or legally transfer parental rights to either one parent or a completely other party. If abandoning a pet is a punishable offence (as it is in my state, at least), than there is no reason why abandoning a child, or, for that matter, your pregnant wife, should be thought of any differently.

  5. #25
    TO Moriarty
    Guest

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    From what I can tell, a lot of the people on this forum feel that women should be granted a special privilege not granted to men.
    Both men and women can take certain measures to ensure that they do not conceive, accidentally, by deception, or otherwise. There are more or less parallel levels of pre-pregnancy steps that can be taken (tied-tubes, vasectomy, female/male condoms, etc.). Okay, we have established that. Both men and women can abstain. Okay. Fine. We have established that. Both men and women have sex for recreational purposes. Not all sex is about procreation. Fair enough.

    Where there is a drastic power shift occurs after pregnancy. Once the woman is pregnant, she has all the power, and the man has none. Why? Because she has reproductive rights, and the man does not. The woman can chose to abort the child if she wants to. The man cannot force or persuade the woman to do this. He should not have reproductive rights over another person, female or otherwise. It is her choice. Fine.
    That is a choice that the woman can make, to have or not have, a child. However, that is where it should end. Her choice should not extend to a man's bank account. If the man does not want the child, then the woman is presented with her choice of having the child on her own, or aborting the child, or putting the child up for adoption, etc. This is still her choice. No one is taking her choice away. If she feels she cannot manage having a child on her own, then she should not have the child on her own. This is not difficult to understand. What she should not be permitted to do is say that she cannot do it on her own, or prefers not to, and therefore conscript the biological father for financial support, when he has not agreed to have a child.

    Example: all possible measures are taken to prevent conception short of surgery (both male and female). Somehow, a child is still conceived despite their best efforts. The female decides she wants the baby. The male is clear he does not, hence all the precautions. The female says she wants to be a mother. The male says he does not want to be a father. The male cannot abort the child. He has no rights. The female can abort if she wants to. She has all the rights. Let's suppose the situation was reversed. She does not want the baby, but the male does. He cannot prevent her from aborting the child. He cannot force her to give birth. He has no rights. She has all the rights. This is a power imbalance, and it has absolutely nothing to do with money, or the child.

    It is unfair to suggest that this issue is about the welfare of the child-to-be. If the welfare of the child is in question on no other basis than whether the father is supporting it, then that child should not be brought into the world by a mother who cannot support it on her own. It is irresponsible and selfish. It is not about the child; it is about women expecting the world to bend over for them because they are expecting mothers.

    The notion that this is an equal situation is laughable: "A man can still avoid forced fatherhood, but he must avoid it by taking precautions BEFORE he creates a child, because he cannot legally walk away, once a child has been conceived or born." Yes, he cannot legally walk away because the court system is horribly biased. It is immoral for a woman to force a man to be a father to a child he never wanted, and to seek money to that end. This is enslavement of men by women. Sure, men can do all the planning that women can do Pre-pregnancy, and many do, but women have an additional set of options available to them that men do not have after pregnancy occurs. This power is being misused, abused. It is disgusting. And yet, women pretend that all this is equal, normal, expected, and the moment someone brings up the obvious imbalance of power, and the inherent unfairness, women protest, and claim this is all about the child.

    I have yet to hear anything that even resembles a coherent argument in connection to this issue. If the legal right to abort cannot be compared to the forced financial obligations of the biological father, why does this issue always boil down to money moving in one direction?: a man's bank account, and into a women's purse. We are talking about the logical consequences of a flawed system. You know it is a flawed system if the same group is repeatedly marginalized (men). Essentially, there is no good reason to risk having sex with a woman, on the basis that you risk the rest of your life in doing so. A women takes no such risk, because she can choose to abort if it suits her.

    So, listen up men: think twice before you lay down with a women. She will tell you whatever she thinks you need to hear in order to carry out the deed; that she is infertile, on the pill, etc. When it boils right down to it, you are means to an end; that's it. And don't be so naive as to think that it can't happen to you. I know about a dozen guys this has happened to. They all had big plans, a life they wanted for themselves and their partner. Now, most of them are consigned to work horrible jobs they hate, dealing with women who treat them like a cash machine and nothing more. Think about 20 years of that! For most men, the idea of having a pile of children is not the biggest priority in their life; they want to actually accomplish something. But for a lot of women, the best they can ever hope to do is have a baby; this somehow confers a level of automatic respect upon women, strangely. So they are satisfied with their "big achievement," but this so-called accomplishment is executed on the backs of men who were never given a choice at the moment of truth.

  6. Likes Talthas liked this post
  7. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by TO Moriarty View Post
    I have yet to hear anything that even resembles a coherent argument in connection to this issue. If the legal right to abort cannot be compared to the forced financial obligations of the biological father, why does this issue always boil down to money moving in one direction?: a man's bank account, and into a women's purse.
    Because a man has an obligation to the children he sires. To be clear - his obligation is not to the woman, his obligation is to the child.

    If you agree with the premise that a man has a financial obligation to his child, then you logically must support that a man should financially provide for his child (unless you think there's a more important premise that alleviates him of this responsibility).

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Because a man has an obligation to the children he sires. To be clear - his obligation is not to the woman, his obligation is to the child.

    If you agree with the premise that a man has a financial obligation to his child, then you logically must support that a man should financially provide for his child (unless you think there's a more important premise that alleviates him of this responsibility).
    The challenge (as in the other thread), is that it is "his" at all.
    Without an inherent obligation from creation, one must be established. (I've thought of this a bit from the other thread.. and I don't think I ever worded quite like this.

    It seems to me that the reason people on the left and right generally "agree" that a man has an obligation to the children he sires, is for two very different reasons.

    I believe it is inherent to the nature of a child, which means that the mother and father have an inherent obligation from inception(hence why abortion is wrong.. another topic). But once I concede that a woman doesn't have such an obligation (for sake of argument) then there is no principle by which I can appeal to establish that connection again.

    I should be no more responsible to a woman who took my DNA and formed a child with it, then if I submitted to a road side DNA test, and some "mad scientist" cloned 10 babies in testubes from my DNA and created a clone army to dominate the world.
    Nor is it very different than a sperm bank. I have no inherent obligation to the product of any of those donations.

    The idea that it is "My" child is thus destroyed, and so is any grounds for establishing obligation again other than by fiat deceleration.


    So the contention is in what way is it "his" child? He did not form it, he did not consent to it, he did not have control over it. It is a complete projection by others without justification.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. Likes Talthas liked this post
  10. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I believe it is inherent to the nature of a child, which means that the mother and father have an inherent obligation from inception(hence why abortion is wrong.. another topic). But once I concede that a woman doesn't have such an obligation (for sake of argument) then there is no principle by which I can appeal to establish that connection again.
    Assuming we are having the same debate as the last thread, we are analyzing the implications of the pro-choice perspective. From that perspective there is no "child" until birth and assuming one holds that one has an obligation to the born child, there is never a moment when the obligation is removed.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I should be no more responsible to a woman who took my DNA and formed a child with it, then if I submitted to a road side DNA test, and some "mad scientist" cloned 10 babies in testubes from my DNA and created a clone army to dominate the world.
    Nor is it very different than a sperm bank. I have no inherent obligation to the product of any of those donations.
    So you don't think that consensual sex is a "voluntary" donation of DNA which obliges him to the product of that donation (the child)?

    If so, then no man should be responsible for his children regardless of the state of abortion laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the contention is in what way is it "his" child? He did not form it, he did not consent to it, he did not have control over it. It is a complete projection by others without justification.
    He consented to sex and that gives him the obligation to the child that results.

    Remember we are analyzing the pro-choice perspective. If abortion were outlawed there would be no debate (amongst us, anyway) that if the man had sex and a child was born, he has a responsibility to the child.

    So your burden is to show how legalizing abortion changes that equation - how we go from "The man consented to sex and a child resulted which he has responsibility for" when abortion is illegal to "The man consented to sex but he has no responsibility to the child that was born because of it" when abortion is legal.
    Last edited by mican333; March 8th, 2014 at 08:41 AM.

  11. #29
    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
    Assuming we are having the same debate as the last thread, we are analyzing the implications of the pro-choice perspective.
    I think that this is the point, Mican: the argument is structured such that the only equitable solution is a pro-life position. I think that this is the entire purpose of the argument and its structure. Without inherently acknowledging that both parents have an obligation to the child that was created through sex from the moment it is created, there is no solution that both protects the rights of all parties involved and produces an equitable outcome. Any other perspective which either does not respect the dignity of the life of the child or does not acknowledge that women have a co-equal part in the creation of the child to that of the man (and consequently should be equally yoked or absolved of responsibility) produces an inherently unjust outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Again, he consented to sex.
    So did she. She did not relinquish her rights to abdicate her parental responsibilities when she had sex. The only equitable solution is that neither did he, and the only reason that this is being debated is because you are operating on the basic assumption that simply because a man has sex, he somehow incurs a responsibility to a child he neither wanted nor intended to have. I don't think you have - or can necessarily - show this to be true in a way that does not apply to the woman equally.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    ...if the man had sex and a child was born, he has a responsibility to the child.
    This is an assumption that I do not believe is necessarily warranted in a situation where abortion is legal, since the mother does not have a commensurate responsibility to the child from the same point that the man incurs such a responsibility. You will need to demonstrate this to be true.

    I realize that there is legal precedent for this... but you are also talking in hypotheticals about outlawing abortion. I'm talking about the straight situation, court opinions aside, so my objection rests only within that sphere. Arguments about the strictly legal sense of this aren't within the scope of my argument.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  12. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    the argument is structured such that the only equitable solution is a pro-life position. I think that this is the entire purpose of the argument and its structure. Without inherently acknowledging that both parents have an obligation to the child that was created through sex from the moment it is created, there is no solution that both protects the rights of all parties involved and produces an equitable outcome. Any other perspective which either does not respect the dignity of the life of the child or does not acknowledge that women have a co-equal part in the creation of the child to that of the man (and consequently should be equally yoked or absolved of responsibility) produces an inherently unjust outcome.
    And I assume you will agree that to make this point one must forward the alternative viewpoint (in this case, the pro-choice perspective) and show, given the premises of the pro-choice position, an equitable outcome is impossible (in this case, that we cannot hold a man responsible for the children he sires).

    That's fine but I just want to be clear. If we are going to reveal this supposed flaw in the pro-choice perspective, we must accept the pro-choice perspective as "true" for the sake of argument when analyzing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    So did she. She did not relinquish her rights to abdicate her parental responsibilities when she had sex. The only equitable solution is that neither did he, and the only reason that this is being debated is because you are operating on the basic assumption that simply because a man has sex, he somehow incurs a responsibility to a child he neither wanted nor intended to have. I don't think you have - or can necessarily - show this to be true in a way that does not apply to the woman equally.
    First let me forward a generally accepted moral premise

    PREMISE - A man has an equal responsibility to the children he sires as the woman does.

    And you are saying that a pro-choicer cannot accept this and remain true to the pro-choice position. More on this below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    This is an assumption that I do not believe is necessarily warranted in a situation where abortion is legal, since the mother does not have a commensurate responsibility to the child from the same point that the man incurs such a responsibility. You will need to demonstrate this to be true.
    I shall then. Again, we are analyzing the pro-choice perspective so I will forward pro-choice premises in my argument.

    1. PREMISE - A man has an equal responsibility to the children he sires as the woman does.
    2. PRO-CHOICE PREMISE - A child and a fetus are two different things (side note to MT - "things" and "objects" are not the same in this definition).
    3. PRO-CHOICE PREMISE - Both parents have an obligation to the child but neither have an obligation to the fetus
    4. PRO-CHOICE PREMISE - There is no child until birth.
    5. Given 4 and 1, once a child is born the man and the woman have an equal responsibility to it.
    Last edited by mican333; March 8th, 2014 at 09:51 AM.

  13. Likes Talthas liked this post
  14. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Assuming we are having the same debate as the last thread, we are analyzing the implications of the pro-choice perspective. From that perspective there is no "child" until birth and assuming one holds that one has an obligation to the born child, there is never a moment when the obligation is removed.
    Well, I would say this is a slightly different debate then that, because I'm only pointing out that we do not share a common ground.
    What I mean is. 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.
    Your view(or at least the pro-choice view) doesn't share that foundation and starts in mid stream with no reason offered. (I can offer a reason for the above).
    Now, entering a discussion where I say for sake of argument that I am wrong.. I have the right to ask on what principle do we establish that man has an obligation to A child, ANY child, and on what grounds.
    Below I will note some clear exceptions that must be accounted for.

    You should note that the FOUNDATION is removed. There is no reason for the belief that one has an obligation to a child.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you don't think that consensual sex is a "voluntary" donation of DNA which obliges him to the product of that donation (the child)?

    If so, then no man should be responsible for his children regardless of the state of abortion laws.
    Do all donations of DNA who's ultimate results be it consentually intended or not result in an obligation?
    On your view do sperm donars at a bank become responsible for all children created by through it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He consented to sex and that gives him the obligation to the child that results.
    What makes sex different from any other form of DNA donations?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Remember we are analyzing the pro-choice perspective. If abortion were outlawed there would be no debate (amongst us, anyway) that if the man had sex and a child was born, he has a responsibility to the child.

    So your burden is to show how legalizing abortion changes that equation - how we go from "The man consented to sex and a child resulted which he has responsibility for" when abortion is illegal to "The man consented to sex but he has no responsibility to the child that was born because of it" when abortion is legal.
    I think I have addressed this above.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I would say this is a slightly different debate then that, because I'm only pointing out that we do not share a common ground.
    What I mean is. 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.
    Your view(or at least the pro-choice view) doesn't share that foundation and starts in mid stream with no reason offered. (I can offer a reason for the above).
    Now, entering a discussion where I say for sake of argument that I am wrong.. I have the right to ask on what principle do we establish that man has an obligation to A child, ANY child, and on what grounds.
    But then who is claiming that you are actually wrong?

    MY overall position in abortion debates is that neither the pro-choice or the pro-life side can prove that the other is actually wrong. We have opinion vs. opinion and ultimately both sides will have to agree to disagree since no one is provably wrong (at least I have yet to see an adequately supported argument for either side).

    So you say "it's my opinion that a fetus has a right to life" and a pro-choicer says "it's my opinion that a fetus does not have a right to life but a child does have a right to life."

    And since it's all opinion, the answer to your question would be "Because it's my opinion that a child has a right to life" regardless of how the opinion is attained (personal feeling or agreement with some external source on the matter).

    To note - I'm not actually saying it's definitely all opinion as in it's a fact that there is no external authority who has determined that there are objective moral facts. I'm saying that no one can, or at least has at ODN, proven that their moral position actually does come from an external morality, like God. So when I say "it's all opinion" I mean no one has proven that their stated position is inherently better than the opposing position.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do all donations of DNA who's ultimate results be it consentually intended or not result in an obligation?
    On your view do sperm donars at a bank become responsible for all children created by through it?
    Well, we're getting slightly off-topic for as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with pro-choice philosophy (as in one can hold any variety of positions on this and still be pro-choice). I was just addressing it because you brought it up.

    But to answer your question anyway, I assume that when one donates sperm there is a legal contract of sorts that say that the man is not responsible for the offspring and that does absolve him of any obligation to the offspring.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What makes sex different from any other form of DNA donations?
    I didn't say it's different from ANY form of DNA donation. I would say the difference is "given" and "stolen". With consensual sex, the DNA is given. If, on the other hand the DNA is "stolen" from him (someone knocks him out and removes sperm from him and creates a child with it), the DNA is stolen and I think a good case can be made that he should not be responsible to the child. As far as something in-between, that's to addressed in a case-by-case basis.
    Last edited by mican333; March 9th, 2014 at 09:05 AM.

  16. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then who is claiming that you are actually wrong?

    MY overall position in abortion debates is that neither the pro-choice or the pro-life side can prove that the other is actually wrong. We have opinion vs. opinion and ultimately both sides will have to agree to disagree since no one is provably wrong (at least I have yet to see an adequately supported argument for either side).

    So you say "it's my opinion that a fetus has a right to life" and a pro-choicer says "it's my opinion that a fetus does not have a right to life but a child does have a right to life."

    And since it's all opinion, the answer to your question would be "Because it's my opinion that a child has a right to life" regardless of how the opinion is attained (personal feeling or agreement with some external source on the matter).

    To note - I'm not actually saying it's definitely all opinion as in it's a fact that there is no external authority who has determined that there are objective moral facts. I'm saying that no one can, or at least has at ODN, proven that their moral position actually does come from an external morality, like God. So when I say "it's all opinion" I mean no one has proven that their stated position is inherently better than the opposing position.
    I think then my position is superior because of it's natural logical flow, and it's internal consistency. But I don't want to discuss that here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, we're getting slightly off-topic for as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with pro-choice philosophy (as in one can hold any variety of positions on this and still be pro-choice). I was just addressing it because you brought it up.

    But to answer your question anyway, I assume that when one donates sperm there is a legal contract of sorts that say that the man is not responsible for the offspring and that does absolve him of any obligation to the offspring.
    If a contract can remove the responsibility, then so can a verbal contract or clear intent. This is more of a "legal" direction of the argument, and it only follows that if the man clearly does not consent to the production of a child, then the sperm is "stolen" for any use of it.
    Basically, a man can retain certain rights to usage of his DNA(sperm) as indicated by your accepting a contract that limits his responsibility.
    There is no reason to think a man can't do this in regards to sex and the birth of a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say it's different from ANY form of DNA donation. I would say the difference is "given" and "stolen". With consensual sex, the DNA is given. If, on the other hand the DNA is "stolen" from him (someone knocks him out and removes sperm from him and creates a child with it), the DNA is stolen and I think a good case can be made that he should not be responsible to the child. As far as something in-between, that's to addressed in a case-by-case basis.
    Then per the above the woman is "stealing" that which isn't hers. And that is permission to create a child. Thus there is no "inherent" obligation of a man to a child that is born using his DNA. this give the man a legitimate legal right to refusal that he is currently being denied. And one that is provided the woman.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think then my position is superior because of it's natural logical flow, and it's internal consistency. But I don't want to discuss that here.
    Keep in mind that you did not show that the pro-choice side does not have a similar internal consistency. Just because I chose to not forward such a thing does not mean that such a thing does not exist. To say otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    But I want to keep the debate focused on the pro-choice position on a father's obligation (that is the topic of this thread as well as my first post here that you challenged). So I agree, let's not debate that further.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If a contract can remove the responsibility, then so can a verbal contract or clear intent. This is more of a "legal" direction of the argument, and it only follows that if the man clearly does not consent to the production of a child, then the sperm is "stolen" for any use of it.
    Basically, a man can retain certain rights to usage of his DNA(sperm) as indicated by your accepting a contract that limits his responsibility.
    There is no reason to think a man can't do this in regards to sex and the birth of a child.
    If a man and woman sign a contract making it clear that the man will not be held responsible for any child that may result from sex, then I suppose he can relinquish his responsibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then per the above the woman is "stealing" that which isn't hers. And that is permission to create a child.
    I disagree. I believe that a man's obligation to his child is based on his consent to provide his DNA by the act of consensual sex (and the "theft" scenario did not involve consensual sex).

    It is a generally recognized legal and moral principle that a man is inherently obligated to children borne of consensual sex.

    If you are questioning that very principle, I believe you are going off topic. If you are saying that the pro-choice side must reject that concept, then show how this is so by providing an argument against it that ONLY the pro-choice side can use (or something to that effect).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thus there is no "inherent" obligation of a man to a child that is born using his DNA. this give the man a legitimate legal right to refusal that he is currently being denied. And one that is provided the woman.
    As I argued above, I disagree. And besides that, what I argued in my last post about a woman stealing a man's DNA and such has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with the pro-choice position.

    One does not have to be pro-choice to say "Well, the man's sperm was taken without his consent so he's not obligated to the child that results." A pro-life person can accept that as readily as a pro-choice person.

    So I don't think this line of argument is supporting the position that a pro-choicer should uniquely be against requiring a father being responsible for his children. Of course, I could be wrong but either way, I ask that all arguments you present lead towards supporting that position.

  18. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If a man and woman sign a contract making it clear that the man will not be held responsible for any child that may result from sex, then I suppose he can relinquish his responsibility.
    Do verbal contracts count?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I disagree. I believe that a man's obligation to his child is based on his consent to provide his DNA by the act of consensual sex (and the "theft" scenario did not involve consensual sex).
    Spirm donation means that simply by giving sperm consentually, doesn't mean that he is ALSO inherently consenting to a child that he will be responsible for.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is a generally recognized legal and moral principle that a man is inherently obligated to children borne of consensual sex.
    And I'm showing how we should afford the idea that he is not inherently obligated, that there are mittigating relevant factors, one of which is denail of permission to use his sperm to create a child.

    what HAS been the case is an appeal to tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are questioning that very principle, I believe you are going off topic. If you are saying that the pro-choice side must reject that concept, then show how this is so by providing an argument against it that ONLY the pro-choice side can use (or something to that effect).
    This thread isn't about the "pro-choice" exclusivly, it also about the legal aspect. so it isn't off topic

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I argued above, I disagree. And besides that, what I argued in my last post about a woman stealing a man's DNA and such has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with the pro-choice position.
    Donation doesn't imply consent to a child. Expressed denial of consent to a child is EXACTLY like giving DNA at a traffic stop and having it used to create a child.
    That is a form of theft. Thus a woman who is creating a child without the mans consent to do so, is "stealing" his DNA for uses not specified in the "trade".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    One does not have to be pro-choice to say "Well, the man's sperm was taken without his consent so he's not obligated to the child that results." A pro-life person can accept that as readily as a pro-choice person.
    I'm going to make a point, and I don't want it to be ignored for several pages, so please pay attention.
    You are wrongly consentraiting on the how the DNA is aquired. You are talking about rape.
    I am making the point of theft through unagreed upon USE. In a situation where it is willfully given with restrictions on it's use.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I don't think this line of argument is supporting the position that a pro-choicer should uniquely be against requiring a father being responsible for his children. Of course, I could be wrong but either way, I ask that all arguments you present lead towards supporting that position.
    I would say that the pro-choice position is forced to accept my reading as being consistent with their description of what is going on in child creation.
    That if anyone wishes to contend that a man has an inherent obligation to children created with his DNA, they must address some of the truths I am pointing out.

    That said.. this thread is not constrained as you are portraying it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do verbal contracts count?
    No. And don't ask me "why not?" If you want to say that they do or should count, it is your burden to support this position.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Spirm donation means that simply by giving sperm consentually, doesn't mean that he is ALSO inherently consenting to a child that he will be responsible for.
    And you don't have to consent to an obligation to receive it. If you kill someone accidentally the judge may rule that you owe his family $10,000. You don't consent to give the money, but you are legally and morally obligated to give it nonetheless. It's under the principle of "taking responsibility for your actions".

    Likewise if a man has consensual sex and a child results, he is morally and legally obligated to the child whether he wants the obligation or not.

    I do not forward this as a "truth". At the very least it's just one person's opinion (mine). And it happens to be shared by the population in general and likewise codified into law creating a legal obligation.

    If you want to forward a contrary opinion, such as one must actually consent to having the child be born before one is obligated to it regardless of the actions they took that resulted in the child, that's fine. Your opinion is noted.

    And if you want to argue that anyone else is obligated to agree with you, you will need to support your position with something that is not ultimately opinion-based.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And I'm showing how we should afford the idea that he is not inherently obligated, that there are mittigating relevant factors, one of which is denail of permission to use his sperm to create a child.
    I disagree with the terminology that she "used" his sperm. That indicates that she took control of the sperm and intentionally used it to create a child.

    But what happened is that the sperm took their own actions and attached to an egg, even if she didn't want them to.

    Therefore neither person necessarily consented to have their mutual activity result in a pregnancy. And as it so happens, their obligation is not to each other but to the child they conceived together. And the child did not consent to be born. So as far as a typical consensual procreative sexual encounter goes, I do not think it's reasonable to paint the man as some kind of victim who was stolen from or taken advantage of when compared to the woman or the child.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Donation doesn't imply consent to a child. Expressed denial of consent to a child is EXACTLY like giving DNA at a traffic stop and having it used to create a child.
    That is a form of theft. Thus a woman who is creating a child without the mans consent to do so, is "stealing" his DNA for uses not specified in the "trade".
    And if a man and a woman create a legally-binding contract stating that she will take full responsibility for the child, then I suppose the man can be released of his legal responsibility (although one may argue that he has a moral responsibility to the child that cannot be waived by any legal means).

    But regardless, we are a nation of laws so if a legally-binding contract legally alters the situation, the situation can be legally altered.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm going to make a point, and I don't want it to be ignored for several pages, so please pay attention.
    You are wrongly consentraiting on the how the DNA is aquired. You are talking about rape.
    I am making the point of theft through unagreed upon USE. In a situation where it is willfully given with restrictions on it's use.
    Again, if there is a contract stating this restriction, then I suppose the situation can legally be changed from the default that the man is responsible.

    But any man must know that if they have consensual sex a child may result so typically his choice is not to make it clear that he does not consent to the responsibility to the child that may result but instead his choice is to not have sex.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say that the pro-choice position is forced to accept my reading as being consistent with their description of what is going on in child creation.
    That if anyone wishes to contend that a man has an inherent obligation to children created with his DNA, they must address some of the truths I am pointing out.
    And that anyone can be pro-choice or pro-life since they BOTH typically hold that a man is responsible for the children he sires.

    So to be clear, you have abandoned any direct argument against the pro-choice position, right?

    If not, then please state what argument against the pro-choice position you are currently forwarding.

    Because at this point I see nothing more or less than an argument that a man has no obligation to the children he sires. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to debate that issue. Previously I was defending the pro-choice position in this thread but if it's no longer under attack, I'll probably exit the debate.
    Last edited by mican333; March 9th, 2014 at 12:15 PM.

  20. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If a contract can remove the responsibility, then so can a verbal contract or clear intent. This is more of a "legal" direction of the argument, and it only follows that if the man clearly does not consent to the production of a child, then the sperm is "stolen" for any use of it.
    If a man and women have consensual sex, with no intention of producing a child, but a new life is conceived, how are you logically justifying that the man's DNA was 'stolen' ("to take the property of another without permission") from his physical body?
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 9th, 2014 at 12:00 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  21. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    If a man and women have consensual sex, with no intention of producing a child, but a new life is conceived, how are you logically justifying that the man's DNA was 'stolen' ("to take the property of another without permission") from his physical body?
    In the sense that it was aquired through deception. Taken with the agreement to not produce a child, then used to produce a child.
    Such as if I were to borrow your shovel to dig a hole.. and then I burned the shovel instead.

    Or more commonly with programs.
    I puchase the program to "use" then Copy it(against our agrement).


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. And don't ask me "why not?" If you want to say that they do or should count, it is your burden to support this position.
    Verbal contracts do count especially in the case where there is evidence to support that such a contract occured.
    Such as the use of preventative measures. If a man uses a condom then there is an expressed and specific reason to think that he "doesn't want a child".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you don't have to consent to an obligation to receive it. If you kill someone accidentally the judge may rule that you owe his family $10,000. You don't consent to give the money, but you are legally and morally obligated to give it nonetheless. It's under the principle of "taking responsibility for your actions".
    Sure, but someone using your car to kill someone shouldn't obligate you to such a fine, thus there is no comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Likewise if a man has consensual sex and a child results, he is morally and legally obligated to the child whether he wants the obligation or not.
    Not once the actions of another are inserted. Here the woman is the one taking actions that obligate the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you want to forward a contrary opinion, such as one must actually consent to having the child be born before one is obligated to it regardless of the actions they took that resulted in the child, that's fine. Your opinion is noted.

    And if you want to argue that anyone else is obligated to agree with you, you will need to support your position with something that is not ultimately opinion-based.
    I have done more than simply state an opinion.. I have offered an argument.
    You are free to leave the discussion and not respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if a man and a woman create a legally-binding contract stating that she will take full responsibility for the child, then I suppose the man can be released of his legal responsibility (although one may argue that he has a moral responsibility to the child that cannot be waived by any legal means).

    But regardless, we are a nation of laws so if a legally-binding contract legally alters the situation, the situation can be legally altered.
    Your response ASSUMES the man has a responsiblity to begin with.
    My argument showes that he doesn't have a responsibility, but that it must be ESTABLISHED with reasons.

    And "it's the law" is not establishing the reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, if there is a contract stating this restriction, then I suppose the situation can legally be changed from the default that the man is responsible.
    There is no "default" it is not "inherent".
    The fact under disput is exactly what you are assuming.
    All your doing is begging the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But any man must know that if they have consensual sex a child may result so typically his choice is not to make it clear that he does not consent to the responsibility to the child that may result but instead his choice is to not have sex.
    False is not a consent to another part for having a child with them, otherwise a man would have standing for a woman who has an abortion and thus "breaks" an obligation.
    He would then be due damages.
    This is clearly not what the pro-choice say.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And that anyone can be pro-choice or pro-life since they BOTH typically hold that a man is responsible for the children he sires.
    I pretty clearly addressed this in my first post. That the agreement is for different reasons and assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So to be clear, you have abandoned any direct argument against the pro-choice position, right?
    This is a challenge TOO not a repudiation of the pro-choice position.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So to be clear, you have abandoned any direct argument against the pro-choice position, right?

    If not, then please state what argument against the pro-choice position you are currently forwarding.

    Because at this point I see nothing more or less than an argument that a man has no obligation to the children he sires. And frankly, I don't think I'm that interested in debating that.
    My argument in regards the pro choice is that from their position they MUST accept my argument, or establish their assumptions of an inherent obligation to a child through reason.

    My point is that they have none, and have taken the common ground assumption for granted without ever thinking about it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  22. #39
    Senior Mod

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

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Previously I was defending the pro-choice position in this thread but if it's no longer under attack, I'll probably exit the debate.
    I will attack the pro-choice position head-on.

    MindTrap beat me to the punch on the basic core of my objection to your primary argument, Mican. What he's said about non-consent to create a child is directly in line with my own position, as is the justification behind such argument to date. I just need to hop in at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Likewise if a man has consensual sex and a child results, he is morally and legally obligated to the child whether he wants the obligation or not.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I disagree with the terminology that she "used" his sperm. That indicates that she took control of the sperm and intentionally used it to create a child.

    But what happened is that the sperm took their own actions and attached to an egg, even if she didn't want them to.
    The fact remains that she has a legal remedy by which she can totally abdicate any parental responsibility, where the man does not. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Therefore neither person necessarily consented to have their mutual activity result in a pregnancy.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And as it so happens, their obligation is not to each other but to the child they conceived together. And the child did not consent to be born.
    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. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    So as far as a typical consensual procreative sexual encounter goes, I do not think it's reasonable to paint the man as some kind of victim who was stolen from or taken advantage of when compared to the woman or the child.
    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.

    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. She consented to have children by allowing herself to be date-raped, which she didn't have to do. She could have refused the drink from the man, who deceived her about its nature and of his intentions in giving it to her. If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have a child by deceiving her partner as to her intention to have a child or not, there is no material difference in these two things, since the man clearly would not have sex with her if he knew that she intended to have children.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And if a man and a woman create a legally-binding contract stating that she will take full responsibility for the child, then I suppose the man can be released of his legal responsibility (although one may argue that he has a moral responsibility to the child that cannot be waived by any legal means).
    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.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  23. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Verbal contracts do count especially in the case where there is evidence to support that such a contract occured.
    Such as the use of preventative measures. If a man uses a condom then there is an expressed and specific reason to think that he "doesn't want a child".
    And the woman let him use the condom so she likewise expressed that she did not want the child either.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sure, but someone using your car to kill someone shouldn't obligate you to such a fine, thus there is no comparison.
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not once the actions of another are inserted. Here the woman is the one taking actions that obligate the man.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have done more than simply state an opinion.. I have offered an argument.
    You are free to leave the discussion and not respond.
    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.

    I'm sure we're going to ultimately have to agree to disagree because no one can prove anything. But we'll see where this goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your response ASSUMES the man has a responsiblity to begin with.
    My argument showes that he doesn't have a responsibility, but that it must be ESTABLISHED with reasons.
    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.

    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no "default" it is not "inherent".
    The fact under disput is exactly what you are assuming.
    All your doing is begging the question.
    I was speaking in a legal sense. And legally there is a default.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False is not a consent to another part for having a child with them, otherwise a man would have standing for a woman who has an abortion and thus "breaks" an obligation.
    He would then be due damages.
    This is clearly not what the pro-choice say.
    I think you kind of stumbled in presenting that point. Can you re-state it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My argument in regards the pro choice is that from their position they MUST accept my argument, or establish their assumptions of an inherent obligation to a child through reason.
    When you make an argument that one MUST accept, I'll entertain that notion. But I see no reason why I must accept your argument so that goes for everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is that they have none, and have taken the common ground assumption for granted without ever thinking about it.
    You have not shown that pro-choicers have any less of a solid foundation for their beliefs in parental obligation than pro-lifers do.

    You seemed to base your belief in a father's obligation in biblical terms. That's fine. But there is no reason that a pro-choicers cannot, and do not, do the same.

    There are likewise who-knows how many other religious and philosophical foundations for that belief. Are you saying that whatever a pro-choicer may use for his/her foundation is invalid as if you know what they all use and that each and every one of them is flawed?

    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.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

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, 05:35 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, 02:28 AM
  4. Society and Fatherhood.
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 14th, 2004, 05:26 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
  •