Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:06 pm UTC

Ok, I know this hypothetical, but could we avoid using the ridiculously villainous woman who blatantly impregnates herself against a man's will and then sues for child support? It seems pretty over the top. Let's focus on something a little closer to what actually happens with real people on a semi-regular basis.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:25 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Ok, I know this hypothetical, but could we avoid using the ridiculously villainous woman who blatantly impregnates herself against a man's will and then sues for child support? It seems pretty over the top. Let's focus on something a little closer to what actually happens with real people on a semi-regular basis.


This, and variants there-of, are not over the top. Just as there are douchebag men out there, there are also douchebag women. You don't think crazy women ever stop taking birth control to try and stay with partners who want to leave them?

Women using children as leverage is not uncommon, and given the way the courts rule its in their best interest to do so.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:30 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:... Women using children as leverage is not uncommon...

Cite that, or else you're just being a jerk.

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
nowfocus wrote:... Women using children as leverage is not uncommon...

Cite that, or else you're just being a jerk.

Actually, it's true to some extent, whether you like to state it explicitly or using a quote.
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

I know it was ridiculous scenario. I saw it as an episode of Boston legal. I don't think I would have been able to come up with something that absurd on my own. I consider a woman forcing her will upon a man just cause she wants a baby to be malicious. You don't. So it was important to find your tipping point. Apparenlty lying to a man to trick him into conception and sabotaging protection is fine, but using genetic material without consent isn't.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Dark567 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:54 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:I know it was ridiculous scenario. I saw it as an episode of Boston legal. I don't think I would have been able to come up with something that absurd on my own. I consider a woman forcing her will upon a man just cause she wants a baby to be malicious. You don't. So it was important to find your tipping point. Apparenlty lying to a man to trick him into conception and sabotaging protection is fine, but using genetic material without consent isn't.


The scenario is a good one, not because it actually happens, but because it shows that if a woman has extremely malicious intent to become pregnant against a mans will, he shouldn't be responsible. I think it also shows that sabotaging contraceptives removes most if not all responsibility of non-saboteur.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:58 pm UTC

Ok, so even if you establish fraud on the mother's part -- the child has to suffer the effect of the parent's crime?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

Are you implying the man should?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:16 pm UTC

Either the uninvolved child does, or the wants-to-be-uninvolved parent does. Which is the more moral decision? I'm going with pushing the burden on the one who made a choice to invoke the risk of this exact outcome.

Because regardless of all the hypothetical scenarios you can invent, the *only* way to completely avoid the risk of pregnancy is to not have sex*. Everything else is a risk assessment.

*EDIT: Or various surgical solutions.

spiderham
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:56 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby spiderham » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:18 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Ok, I know this hypothetical, but could we avoid using the ridiculously villainous woman who blatantly impregnates herself against a man's will and then sues for child support? It seems pretty over the top. Let's focus on something a little closer to what actually happens with real people on a semi-regular basis.


But it does expose the fact that there are limits to the principle that our first priority is to do what's in the best interest of the child. It shows that the choice to have sex brings some kind of responsibility.

I think your moral obligations depend in part on how much you will hurt your partner if your choice is not what your partner wanted.
Last edited by spiderham on Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:19 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
nowfocus wrote:... Women using children as leverage is not uncommon...

Cite that, or else you're just being a jerk.


You don't think children are sometimes used as leverage in the case of a divorce? Or you don't think that divorces are common? Or you don't think that child custody battles favor women? I can't tell which of these judgements makes me a jerk.

Azrael wrote:Ok, so even if you establish fraud on the mother's part -- the child has to suffer the effect of the parent's crime?


The child isn't "suffering", the child just isn't being helped. Big difference. And yes, it is justified because the alternative establishes a precedent that makes it advantageous for women to have children alterior motives. This child has to have a statistically worse life, but far fewer will have to follow those footsteps.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:26 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:... This child has to have a statistically worse life ...
So that's a yes, you'd prefer the consequences of the mother's fraud falls on the child. But ... it's ok because those kids living statistically worse lives are great examples to be used as disincentives to other mothers who might decide to act fraudulently? In a discussion of morality, that's not a defensible position.

Sure, kids can be used as leverage in divorce and custody battles, but those are not what this (ridiculous) hypothetical involves, so that's an irrelevant example. So you still haven't addressed the prevalence of such cases of fraud. Right now you're continuing to examine a case that, for all practical and statistical purposes, doesn't actually happen.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Dark567 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Ok, so even if you establish fraud on the mother's part -- the child has to suffer the effect of the parent's crime?


The complete responsibility of the child falls on the mother. Any suffering the child endures is completely her fault and her responsibility to prevent. Basically I don't consider the genetic "donor" to be a parent anymore. At least as far as any responsibility goes.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby General_Norris » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:50 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Ok, so even if you establish fraud on the mother's part -- the child has to suffer the effect of the parent's crime?


Man,w e are now talking about a CRIME here. So the man being betrayed in his trust by the woman is now a crime. Wow. What Dark567 says. She is the one who chooses to keep the child, did you forget that?

Because regardless of all the hypothetical scenarios you can invent, the *only* way to completely avoid the risk of pregnancy is to not have sex*. Everything else is a risk assessment.


So the man gets the blame because he should have known better. You know it's like when women wear slutty and get raped, they totally deserve it. :roll: The "only" way to completely avoid the risk of rape is not meeting anyone. Everything else is a risk assessment.

Izawwlgood wrote:In an ideal world, the courts would be able to decide without a shadow of a doubt which men had preemptively stated and confirmed that they did not want a child, and which women had agreed to raise the child on their own


So now the man has to state that he doesn't want a child. Wow. Now, you have to write down that you don't want to be raped too? You are assuming that the man consents to have children if he doesn't say otherwise? What a bull.


On common occurrence of this kind of cases. It's uncommon but not rare or unheard of. People often try to blackmail the other partner so they don't break up. I know at least 3 cases where a woman lied about taking the pill because of an inminent breakup. Yes, people go that far.

Also it being common or not doesn't mean there should be no protection or that it is "less wrong"

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:06 pm UTC

General Norris, you are grossly incorrect in equating having consensual sex with non consensual consequences, and non consensual sex, and I hope you stop it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:15 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
nowfocus wrote:... This child has to have a statistically worse life ...
So that's a yes, you'd prefer the consequences of the mother's fraud falls on the child. But ... it's ok because those kids living statistically worse lives are great examples to be used as disincentives to other mothers who might decide to act fraudulently? In a discussion of morality, that's not a defensible position.

Sure, kids can be used as leverage in divorce and custody battles, but those are not what this (ridiculous) hypothetical involves, so that's an irrelevant example. So you still haven't addressed the prevalence of such cases of fraud. Right now you're continuing to examine a case that, for all practical and statistical purposes, doesn't actually happen.


I'd prefer a system where the mother's fraud isn't rewarded and thus she has no incentive to do it. The mother has put the child into this position, it would be the father bailing them out. Or a random man/woman on the street could marry the mother to create a two parent household. But the interests of the child are not the only moral consideration.

We can't get any hard data about woman having kids for emotional/financial leverage, we have to infer it. Kids are used as leverage in divorce, so I would infer they are used as leverage in other instances, such as troubled relationships and financial despiration. You may not be comfortable with that, but others here are. In either case that doesn't give you the right to insult me.

'The point of the example, however common/uncommon, is that the father shouldn't be responsible for child support payments if he's been lied too. Duping men into parenthood is neither moral nor good for society.

The whole point of the pro abortion movement is that women should have the right to decide if they want to be mothers. I'd like to see fathers given that choice as well, though perhaps through a contract.

Izawwlgood wrote:In an ideal world, the courts would be able to decide without a shadow of a doubt which men had preemptively stated and confirmed that they did not want a child, and which women had agreed to raise the child on their own

Would a contract suffice?
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:22 pm UTC

Sigh...okay, in the rare case that one parent has *demonstrably* committed fraud to bring a child into the world against the other's will, I think that they should be punished and that the government should take financial responsibility for the child (after the fraudulent parent is forced to contribute as much as they can financially).
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:24 pm UTC

Okay, firstly, can we stop with this absurd impression that 'child support' somehow means 'the mother is rewarded', as though the cost of raising a child doesn't vastly, vastly overshadow the amount the fathers pay? Child support is NOTHING compared to what the parent raising the child is going to have to deal with.

nowfocus wrote:The point of the example, however common/uncommon, is that the father shouldn't be responsible for child support payments if he's been lied too. Duping men into parenthood is neither moral nor good for society.

The whole point of the pro abortion movement is that women should have the right to decide if they want to be mothers. I'd like to see fathers given that choice as well, though perhaps through a contract.


I mean, short of forcing women to abort, I don't see how this is really possible. If a woman contractually agrees to not ask for child support and doesn't, then sure, a man can walk away from the child he didn't want. You're effectively saying you'd rather err on the side of letting men off the hook. I'd rather err on the side of having supported children. In the event of fraud (and how the fuck do you even start to prove that?), again, I'd rather err on the side of having a supported child.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:39 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Okay, firstly, can we stop with this absurd impression that 'child support' somehow means 'the mother is rewarded', as though the cost of raising a child doesn't vastly, vastly overshadow the amount the fathers pay? Child support is NOTHING compared to what the parent raising the child is going to have to deal with.
Seriously, thank you.

Moving on:
General_Norris wrote:
Azrael wrote:Because regardless of all the hypothetical scenarios you can invent, the *only* way to completely avoid the risk of pregnancy is to not have sex*. Everything else is a risk assessment.
So the man gets the blame because he should have known better. You know it's like when women wear slutty and get raped, they totally deserve it. :roll: The "only" way to completely avoid the risk of rape is not meeting anyone. Everything else is a risk assessment.
Oh, why is the default example of a crime always rape (he asks rhetorically)? Look, the last thing this (page of the) discussion needs is to go from trying to find meaning in one distorted extreme to the topic the internet has repeatedly demonstrated is guaranteed to devolve into nothing but distorted extremes. Let's not even touch that topic with a 10' pole.

Let's pretend you said "property crime" because the same extreme makes for the same rebuttal. That extreme is that 'the only way to avoid being robbed is not to have anything to steal.'

Anyway, here why it's different than this situation: When you have sex, unless preventative measures are taken pregnancy can be assumed to be the end result (willfully ignoring infertility, which if it were present, would nullify even the original position of the thread and it thus irrelevant to this discussion). If I own stuff, and don't secure it (preventative measures) to redundant (in the current extreme, doubly) degrees, the end result is not theft. And to top the cake off, people don't buy stuff to get it stolen. People *do* have sex to make babies.

So anyway, I understand you're going for a victim blame analogy, but it doesn't hold up.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:55 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Okay, firstly, can we stop with this absurd impression that 'child support' somehow means 'the mother is rewarded', as though the cost of raising a child doesn't vastly, vastly overshadow the amount the fathers pay? Child support is NOTHING compared to what the parent raising the child is going to have to deal with


The mother receives the child she desired and additional money. The total cost of the child is irrelevant. This is a reward, because she will have to pay less to support the child.
Izawwlgood wrote:I mean, short of forcing women to abort, I don't see how this is really possible. If a woman contractually agrees to not ask for child support and doesn't, then sure, a man can walk away from the child he didn't want. You're effectively saying you'd rather err on the side of letting men off the hook. I'd rather err on the side of having supported children. In the event of fraud (and how the fuck do you even start to prove that?), again, I'd rather err on the side of having a supported child.


I'm not effectively saying that. I'm saying that if a contract is in place stating that in the event of pregnancy the male stated to the female beforehand that they do not want the child, and is not expected to make child support payment. Its a contract, there is no "erring".

I personally would go further and say that the contract does not need the womans consent, only that she is aware of it before any pregnancy. But can we at least agree that such a contract should be binding?

Azrael wrote:Because regardless of all the hypothetical scenarios you can invent, the *only* way to completely avoid the risk of pregnancy is to not have sex*. Everything else is a risk assessment.


It is risk assessment, but misrepresenting that risk should have weight in the courts and in our minds. Sure there is a risk of getting AIDS when you sleep with someone, but if someone with AIDS doesn't inform you before intercourse, you can sue. Similarly, a woman claiming she is on the pill when she is not is misrepresenting the risk of pregnancy, and so she alone she be responsible for the consequences.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:56 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Oh, why is the default example of a crime always rape (he asks rhetorically)? Look, the last thing this (page of the) discussion needs is to go from trying to find meaning in one distorted extreme to the topic the internet has repeatedly demonstrated is guaranteed to devolve into nothing but distorted extremes. Let's not even touch that topic with a 10' pole.

Let's pretend you said "property crime" because the same extreme makes for the same rebuttal. That extreme is that 'the only way to avoid being robbed is not to have anything to steal.'

Anyway, here why it's different than this situation: When you have sex, unless preventative measures are taken pregnancy can be assumed to be the end result (willfully ignoring infertility, which if it were present, would nullify even the original position of the thread and it thus irrelevant to this discussion). If I own stuff, and don't secure it (preventative measures) to redundant (in the current extreme, doubly) degrees, the end result is not theft. And to top the cake off, people don't buy stuff to get it stolen. People *do* have sex to make babies.

So anyway, I understand you're going for a victim blame analogy, but it doesn't hold up.

People have sex because it's fun. Most people who I know have sex don't do it with the intention to make babies. Not even Christians. Of course, having babies is seen as a long or at least middle-term goal by quite a lot of people, especially women, but nobody has sex thinking "I hope we will make a baby today."
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:01 pm UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:People have sex because it's fun. Most people who I know have sex don't do it with the intention to make babies. Not even Christians. Of course, having babies is seen as a long or at least middle-term goal by quite a lot of people, especially women, but nobody has sex thinking "I hope we will make a baby today."
...uh. Yes, actually, they do. Have you ever seen that thing back next to the pregnancy tests in the supermarket? The thing called the 'ovulation meter'? That's used to determine the precise day you should have sex to maximize your chances of having a baby. Which means the people using it are actually thinking to themselves: "Man, I hope we will make a baby today". Quite possibly while having sex.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:05 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:
Azrael wrote:Because regardless of all the hypothetical scenarios you can invent, the *only* way to completely avoid the risk of pregnancy is to not have sex*. Everything else is a risk assessment.
It is risk assessment, but misrepresenting that risk should have weight in the courts and in our minds. Sure there is a risk of getting AIDS when you sleep with someone, but if someone with AIDS doesn't inform you before intercourse, you can sue. Similarly, a woman claiming she is on the pill when she is not is misrepresenting the risk of pregnancy, and so she alone she be responsible for the consequences.
If all of the consequences fell on the mother, than I absolutely agree. But there's a kid that's affected as well - obviously through no fault of their own. Were this (can I say it again? RIDICULOUS) scenario prevalent enough to be worth the trouble we've put into it, then could the best way out for the state to put the baby up for adoption? Although that would (probably) make the child whole, I'm not sure it's a proportional response to the severity of the crime.

EduardoLeon wrote:People have sex because it's fun. Most people who I know have sex don't do it with the intention to make babies. Not even Christians. Of course, having babies is seen as a long or at least middle-term goal by quite a lot of people, especially women, but nobody has sex thinking "I hope we will make a baby today."
Of course people have recreational sex. But unless I'm missing something, having sex remains the only widespread and practical way to conceive. And unless *all* pregnancies are accidental, your last assertion is clearly false.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:23 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:If all of the consequences fell on the mother, than I absolutely agree. But there's a kid that's affected as well - obviously through no fault of their own. Were this (can I say it again? RIDICULOUS) scenario prevalent enough to be worth the trouble we've put into it, then could the best way out for the state to put the baby up for adopti


Permutations of this situation aren't so ridiculous. What about a woman who says that were an unwanted pregnancy occur, then she would get an abortion. The pregnancy comes along, and she decides against it. She misrepresented the risk of a child birth to her partner. Should her partner face these consequences?

I think your unfairly blaming the circumstances of the child on the father in these situations. Just because he can change those circumstances doesn't mean they are his fault. If I turned my apartment into a homeless shelter, there would be fewer people on the streets. But that doesn't mean homelessness is my fault.

Further, almost everything a mother does has consequences on her child, but we don't legally enforce most of them. Drinking during pregnancy has terrible consequences for a child, but we don't charge drunk pregnant women with assault. So does smoking. So does diet, and so does her level of wealth and education. All of these have massive consequences on the health of the child, but none have legal weight and some don't have moral weight. I don't see why we worry about the consequences for the child should make a difference in this decision, but not in all these others. I doubt you'd be comfortable saying that people with an education below high school completion should morally not have children, or that they should morally have to complete high school, due to the statistical consequences for their child.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

MoghLiechty2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby MoghLiechty2 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:People have sex because it's fun. Most people who I know have sex don't do it with the intention to make babies. Not even Christians. Of course, having babies is seen as a long or at least middle-term goal by quite a lot of people, especially women, but nobody has sex thinking "I hope we will make a baby today."

The problem with using a term like "nobody" is that it can be proven false with a single anecdote. Like, say, somebody at my church who was trying to get pregnant for years, and was ecstatic to recently find out she was pregnant.

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:32 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Of course people have recreational sex. But unless I'm missing something, having sex remains the only widespread and practical way to conceive. And unless *all* pregnancies are accidental, your last assertion is clearly false.

MoghLiechty2 wrote:The problem with using a term like "nobody" is that it can be proven false with a single anecdote. Like, say, somebody at my church who was trying to get pregnant for years, and was ecstatic to recently find out she was pregnant.

In any case, people don't usually have sex to have kids in that very moment. Normal women (or women that I consider to be so) who want to have children have sex and hope that (statistically, even if they don't know it) they will be pregnant some time. But I concede that I shouldn't have said nobody has sex with the purpose of making a child in that very occasion.
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:35 pm UTC

Not only are you continuing to demonstrate that you have no idea what women are or aren't thinking, your rebuttal to my original statement continues to be moot - sex *is* the way babies happen*.


* Appropriate disclaimers

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:41 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Not only are you continuing to demonstrate that you have no idea what women are or aren't thinking, your rebuttal to my original statement continues to be moot - sex *is* the way babies happen.

That sex is the way babies happen doesn't mean that people expect to "make" them in a very specific occasion. To increase the chances of baby-making, normal people have sex more often, because baby-making is a stochastic process, it might happen or it might not. Is that too hard to understand?
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:45 pm UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:In any case, people don't usually have sex to have kids in that very moment. Normal women (or women that I consider to be so) who want to have children have sex and hope that (statistically, even if they don't know it) they will be pregnant some time. But I concede that I shouldn't have said nobody has sex with the purpose of making a child in that very occasion.

...

That sex is the way babies happen doesn't mean that people expect to "make" them in a very specific occasion. To increase the chances of baby-making, normal people have sex more often, because baby-making is a stochastic process, it might happen or it might not. Is that too hard to understand?
The existence (and profitability) of a product geared precisely to this purpose--determining at what point you will be most fertile, thus allowing you to arrange for an intimate encounter at that precise point in time--proves you wrong on the 'most' part, too. They sell upwards to a hundred dollars (for the more sophisticated electric ovulation meters) and downward to about 12 dollars for the throw-away kits. And they sell. Every woman who buys one is demonstrating that yes, you have no idea what you're talking about (and yes, women buy them).
nowfocus wrote:Permutations of this situation aren't so ridiculous. What about a woman who says that were an unwanted pregnancy occur, then she would get an abortion. The pregnancy comes along, and she decides against it. She misrepresented the risk of a child birth to her partner. Should her partner face these consequences?
Man, verbal contracts ain't worth the paper they're written on. Besides, the situation you're proposing is kind of preposterous--do women prefer abortions as a form of birth control ("Yes, please, an invasive procedure that costs upward of 400 dollars is much preferable to a five-dollar pack of condoms")? And I don't know about you, but I'm not going to count what two people say to each other before sex about the distant future as a binding contractual agreement by which we shall now measure the metrics of blame.
nowfocus wrote:I think your unfairly blaming the circumstances of the child on the father in these situations. Just because he can change those circumstances doesn't mean they are his fault. If I turned my apartment into a homeless shelter, there would be fewer people on the streets. But that doesn't mean homelessness is my fault.
Which is more important: Who we blame, or how we deal with the situation? I don't think it's 'blaming' the father; I think it's making the best out of shitty circumstances.

EduardoLeon
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:26 am UTC
Location: Lima, Perú
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby EduardoLeon » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:50 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The existence (and profitability) of a product geared precisely to this purpose--determining at what point you will be most fertile, thus allowing you to arrange for an intimate encounter at that precise point in time--proves you wrong on the 'most' part, too. They sell upwards to a hundred dollars (for the more sophisticated electric ovulation meters) and downward to about 12 dollars for the throw-away kits. And they sell. Every woman who buys one is demonstrating that yes, you have no idea what you're talking about (and yes, women buy them).

Since the existence and profitability of a product also relies on the fact that it statistically works, i.e., the average target consumer expects it to work, what you said actually proves nothing.
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein!

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:56 pm UTC

That doesn't even make sense -- the continued existence of a consumer product absolutely demonstrates there is a demand for the product. And since there is a product differentiation, and cost increase for those products that have the features in question, their sale indicates that people are looking for those features. Also: Other examples.

No, not everyone having sex is doing so to get pregnant.
Yes, some people have sex with the intent to get pregnant from some specific instances.

A blanket argument to the contrary is not only astoundingly illogical (you again argue an absolute that can't be proven, but can easily be disproved) but continues to be irrelevant to this discussion.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:56 pm UTC

EduardoLeon wrote:Since the existence and profitability of a product also relies on the fact that it statistically works, i.e., the average target consumer expects it to work, what you said actually proves nothing.
...maybe I'm just grossly misunderstanding you? Your claim: Under normal circumstances, most women don't have sex for the explicit purpose of having babies. My counter claim: Here is a device that women purchase so they may know precisely when to have sex for the explicit purpose of having babies. It sells well, indicating that many women are purchasing it so they may know precisely when they should have sex for the explicit purpose of having babies. Ergo, your claim is incorrect, and demonstrates an important misconception about why (some) women have sex.

Sex is (hopefully) fun, but sometimes it's actually the fun itself that's just a consequence.

User avatar
Chicostick
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:19 am UTC
Location: The boonies of Maine

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chicostick » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:11 am UTC

I feel like all this debate is kind of pointless in a way, as what an individual chooses to do in this situation is highly effected by how the situation came about.

If unplanned parenthood happens in a long term relationship as an honest to goodness accident, then what someone does will be different than if it was a one night stand, no strings attached outing.

And as to the earlier speculation as to whether a woman would actually get pregnant to entrap a man, my cousin did that very thing. She had been dating a man for a long time, and things started to get a little iffy in the relationship as he started to lose interest in her (with good reason, as she is a total bitch. I know from experience. Yes I love her cause she's family, but she's just a giant bitch). Well what do you know, as soon as he finally tries to cut her off and leave for good, she gets pregnant! While on birth control too! What're the odds that a form of contraceptive that is statistically extremely effective happens to fail at the EXACT time they were breaking up?

I have to give credit to the Father, he tried to do the right thing and support his kid. He's a Marine, so he's usually on tours of duty in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and he married her for the sole purpose of making sure they would get benefits if he was KIA. I feel really bad for their child, as he is stuck being raised by my neurotic Aunt, and my cousin is way to immature to handle parenthood, even though she's 23.

So yes, this "entrapment" situation does happen. Sure I can't PROVE that that's exactly what she did, but almost everyone in my family that knows her personality agrees it is the most likely scenario. And as far as it being an "accident," she's not an idiot. There's dozens of preventatives out there. Birth Control is extremely effective, Condoms work well, If a mistake is made Plan B can help, and hell even the old "pull and pray" method is 94% effective if done properly. Getting pregnant accidentally is really difficult to do with all the options out there. Hearing about young girls getting pregnant just makes me wonder how they're so stupid as to not just use preventive measures.

However, it can still happen. And if it does, what happens next depends on the status of the relationship, and the status of the individuals in it. Personally, if I got a girl pregnant, I would try to support the child if she wanted to keep it, but I would try and convince her to put the child up for adoption. If SHE wanted to have an abortion, I would reluctantly agree, but I wouldn't suggest it. If she keeps it I'll try and help financially, but I don't think I could play a real active role in the child's life at my age. And I wouldn't want to be a father that shows up every once in awhile, for me it's all or nothing. Whether that's good or not can be debated, but that's just how I feel.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:12 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Man, verbal contracts ain't worth the paper they're written on. Besides, the situation you're proposing is kind of preposterous--do women prefer abortions as a form of birth control ("Yes, please, an invasive procedure that costs upward of 400 dollars is much preferable to a five-dollar pack of condoms")? And I don't know about you, but I'm not going to count what two people say to each other before sex about the distant future as a binding contractual agreement by which we shall now measure the metrics of blame.


How does my situation imply that women prefer abortion as a form of birth control?? The woman could be using condoms and the pill, but there still is a risk of pregnancy. When that risk is realized the views of abortion become quite relevant.

And how is this situation ridiculous? Saying you'll have an abortion and having an abortion are two very different things. The idea that a womans views on abortion my change in the face of a pregnancy is not at all preposterous.

The point about it being a 'verbal contract' is irrelevant: the woman is misrepresenting the risk of a pregnancy. The father made a judgment based on that, plain and simple.

The Great Hippo wrote:Which is more important: Who we blame, or how we deal with the situation? I don't think it's 'blaming' the father; I think it's making the best out of shitty circumstances.


The question of 'blame as your put it, or responsibility as I would put it, is essential in calculating the morality in any situation.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:24 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:How does my situation imply that women prefer abortion as a form of birth control?? The woman could be using condoms and the pill, but there still is a risk of pregnancy. When that risk is realized the views of abortion become quite relevant.
Oh, I misunderstood, I thought you were proposing a situation where a woman would propose abortion as the primary means of birth control. I beg your pardon!

Nevertheless, your situation is still kind of unrealistic. How many men refuse to have sex with women until they agree to have an abortion in the unlikely case of pregnancy?
nowfocus wrote:The question of 'blame as your put it, or responsibility as I would put it, is essential in calculating the morality in any situation.
So it's not a question of "We need to ensure this child gets the care they need", but "we need to punish the right people"?
Chicostick wrote:And as to the earlier speculation as to whether a woman would actually get pregnant to entrap a man, my cousin did that very thing. She had been dating a man for a long time, and things started to get a little iffy in the relationship as he started to lose interest in her (with good reason, as she is a total bitch. I know from experience. Yes I love her cause she's family, but she's just a giant bitch). Well what do you know, as soon as he finally tries to cut her off and leave for good, she gets pregnant! While on birth control too! What're the odds that a form of contraceptive that is statistically extremely effective happens to fail at the EXACT time they were breaking up?
So by 'my cousin did that very thing', you mean 'I suspect my cousin did that very thing'? And what type of contraceptive? You might owe your cousin an apology; many contraceptives aren't half as effective as we tend to think they are.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:39 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
nowfocus wrote:I think your unfairly blaming the circumstances of the child on the father in these situations. Just because he can change those circumstances doesn't mean they are his fault. If I turned my apartment into a homeless shelter, there would be fewer people on the streets. But that doesn't mean homelessness is my fault.
Which is more important: Who we blame, or how we deal with the situation? I don't think it's 'blaming' the father; I think it's making the best out of shitty circumstances.


Well, I think with the responsibility argument you could argue that the government should provide the needed child support rather than the unintentional genetic donor.

Moving back to the morality side of things - if someone is an unwilling parent, do you think it would make them a horrible person to not want to be part of the child's life at all (other than necessary financial support)? To put their desire to live the life they want above the benefit* to the child of having them in their life?

*I imagine that benefit is questionable if the parent doesn't actually care for them or like children in general.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:11 am UTC

I see two sides to that setz, first, simple providing child support does not force you to be part of a childs life, and if you don't want to be you shouldn't have to be. Conversly, I think its horrible that courts are fine with ordering an interested father to pay for his children, but not allow equal visitation rights.
Secondly, I don't think there is anything wrong with supporting the child, but wanting nothing to do with it. The mother should be free to pursue her own romantic interests, and so should you.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

spiderham
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:56 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby spiderham » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:49 am UTC

setzer777 wrote: Moving back to the morality side of things - if someone is an unwilling parent, do you think it would make them a horrible person to not want to be part of the child's life at all (other than necessary financial support)? To put their desire to live the life they want above the benefit* to the child of having them in their life?

*I imagine that benefit is questionable if the parent doesn't actually care for them or like children in general.


That's the point I made earlier.

I think you have to know more facts in order to know whether there is a moral dilemma. Under some fact situations, yes, notwithstanding the child support, the child really will suffer without you. For example, the mother may be unstable, or for some other reason be less than an ideal parent, or may really need help raising the kid. You'd feel guilty abandoning the child. But under different facts, the child's environment might be healthy and the mother might have plenty of support and so you would really not be needed that much.

I don't think your desire to be part of the child's life has much to do with your moral obligations; it's really all about the consequences of your actions.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:49 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Nevertheless, your situation is still kind of unrealistic. How many men refuse to have sex with women until they agree to have an abortion in the unlikely case of pregnancy?
nowfocus wrote:The question of 'blame as your put it, or responsibility as I would put it, is essential in calculating the morality in any situation.
So it's not a question of "We need to ensure this child gets the care they need", but "we need to punish the right people"?


Well, I personally do factor abortion stance into my decision, as well as a host of other things. Perhaps others wouldn't refuse to have sex, but would limit the risk of pregnancy further? I.e. condom + withdrawing?

The question of ensuring the child gets the care they need to me is seperate, and is best left to government programs like public schools and welfare. I'm not saying we need to punish the right people, only that we shouldn't punish the wrong people.

Further, this is a debate about the morality of the situation, not how to best resolve the situation. We can both agree that having children requrie money. What were debating is whether that should come from the unwilling father. The question "how responsible is the father for the child" is important here. If the father accurately knew the risks and got unlucky, he should pay. If he can demonstrate that he was misled about the risks, or can demonstrate that he informed his partner that he never wanted a child and never intended pay child support, then he isn't responsible. The mother is.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:11 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:The question of ensuring the child gets the care they need to me is seperate, and is best left to government programs like public schools and welfare. I'm not saying we need to punish the right people, only that we shouldn't punish the wrong people


*twitch*
The tax payers are the right people, and the parents are the wrong people? Because I don't think you're talking about the children here...

nowfocus wrote:If he can demonstrate that he was misled about the risks, or can demonstrate that he informed his partner that he never wanted a child and never intended pay child support, then he isn't responsible. The mother is.


"Your Honor, I totally informed her I didn't want a baby. Therefor, I shouldn't have to pay."
*Gavel slam!*
"Lady, I condemn your child to a single parent income, because it is CLEAR that his/her father was a VICTIM!"

Seriously dude, how do you POSSIBLY propose a system that A) identifies that, and B) conscientiously supports that?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests