Choice goes both ways?

[BEAKER]

Are you married cwes99_03?

[pgrmdave]

The man has a substantial input, but is not part of the process from that time on other than how our society deem him so. There is no connection between the man and the child once the fertilization has occurred.

 

There's no connection? What kind of connection do you mean? Obviously, there is no physical connection, but after birth, is a mother or father not responsible for the child, even with no physical connection. Is the physical connection really the most important thing to determine care? Obviously not, so you must have meant an emotional connection. Now, to argue that the father has 'no connection' emotionally is erroneous and I'm sure that every father here will confirm that they have strong emotional attachments to their children.

 

I think that Irish is right, it may not be fair to force a woman to go through a pregnancy, but it is more fair than forcing a father to feel that his child was murdered.

 

Why doesn't anyone argue here that the ultimate solution would be to ban sex (where a child could be conceived) between anyone but a man and his wife?

 

Because even if we think it is true, it is unrealistic to expect that the instince to reproduce, possibly the most basic instinct in animals, can be stopped by anything short of a complete police state, and even then it's doubtful. It is also intrusive on personal freedoms - I think that in most cases, a person can have any freedom they want so long as it doesn't harm another, or remove another's freedom.

[cwes99_03]

But isn't this what we are suggesting. That in order for all parties to be free to get what they want then another would have to be limited. Isn't the man being limited if he wants to be free of the responsibility of the child, when the woman doesn't? Or vice versa, isn't the woman being limited if the man wants the child to be born but she doesn't?

 

And what about people going on diets all the time? Aren't they limiting themselves for their own apparent benefit? At least millions of people try every year and some succeed. By succeeding they learn a lot about their own bodies and what it takes to be healthy. But they had to give up something in order to achieve that.

 

So getting married means giving up some of your own personal freedoms of maybe sleeping around or doing whatever you want whenever you want. But the ultimate benefit would be having kids and being good parents and being responsible.

 

Personally, I'm very tired of all this crap about personal freedom being intruded upon. Step up to responsibility, my friends. GROW UP!

 

No, I'm not married. I'm not ready to be married. Yes, I'm a 24 year old virgin! If I were ready to be married, I would definitely only marry a woman who I found to be equally ready and emotionally/mentally/spiritually equipped herself to be married. The woman I marry will not leave me, she will not cheat on me, nor will I of her. Until I find that woman, I will remain completely single, not even dating, because I don't want the temptation of doing something that will cause problems.

Many of you will say I'm living without a lot of joy or fun. I say I'm living without all the physical, emotional, mental problems that so many today go through because they couldn't keep it in their pants. Thank goodness I was raised smarter.

[Boerseun]

I've gotta agree with Irish. And it seems fair that if the man wants the kid and the woman not, after consensual sex, well, she'll just have to carry it to term and hand it over to the father. Sorry, but biologically the roles can't be reversed.

 

I know - it's the mother's body, and she has the legal footing to terminate if she wants to. But I'm talking in a hypothetical 'perfect world' where the father's wishes are respected as well.

 

The other problem with this legal fairyland, is that no court currently will give the father custody whilst the mother is alive and kicking and not medically unfit to look after kids (like a drug addict or something). Regardless of the deal between the mother and father, the courts will give custody primarily to the mother and force the father to pay maintenance. If the mother croaks, her family is next in line for custody.

 

How unfair is that? Seems like single fathers get shafted every single time. Talk about discrimination!

[Edge]

But isn't this what we are suggesting. That in order for all parties to be free to get what they want then another would have to be limited.

Yup, there are limits to many things. Respect others' lives and property and there, you got freedom.

 

Isn't the man being limited if he wants to be free of the responsibility of the child, when the woman doesn't? Or vice versa, isn't the woman being limited if the man wants the child to be born but she doesn't?

That's a matter of two people. Kinda like when they are deciding which house to buy or where to go for vacation next year. They gotta settle an agreement. And the authorities should not be involved, unless it's a special case.

 

And what about people going on diets all the time? Aren't they limiting themselves for their own apparent benefit?

Yeah, but they are free to limit themselves, it's their own decision; they can flip out of the diet whenever they want to or they can continue with it. This is irrelevant, since they chose to limit themselves to something for a personal reason.

 

So, now you can't go on a diet by a personal decision because of that? :confused:

At least millions of people try every year and some succeed. By succeeding they learn a lot about their own bodies and what it takes to be healthy. But they had to give up something in order to achieve that.

Yeah, so happens with many things to get success. This does not relate anything to this matter. What should society give up to achieve "success"?

 

They want to be a free society. I guess they almost achieve that.

 

So getting married means giving up some of your own personal freedoms of maybe sleeping around or doing whatever you want whenever you want. But the ultimate benefit would be having kids and being good parents and being responsible.

True. And while you are single you can do "whatever you want", they can marry whenever they want. People can have sex being single and it's their own matter, not the government's or society's. I'll be damned if I have to give such a personal freedom thanks to the ideas of religious people.

 

 

Personally, I'm very tired of all this crap about personal freedom being intruded upon. Step up to responsibility, my friends. GROW UP!

Of course, with freedoms you have responsibilities and obligations to respond to. What's the matter? So, now you want to ban sex because of some irresponsible f**ktards? B)

 

What about if we ban cars because stupid people always get drunk and end up running over others and crashing. Would that be fair?

 

Of course not, it's stupid. Same goes with sex.

 

Many of you will say I'm living without a lot of joy or fun. I say I'm living without all the physical, emotional, mental problems that so many today go through because they couldn't keep it in their pants. Thank goodness I was raised smarter.

And you are free to do that. Thank you.

[Beef_Bourito]

I'm goin to start off with my personal beliefs then get to the point. I'm prolife, i don't think anyone should be allowed to abort a child, i also believe that people should wait untill they're married to the person they'll spend the rest of their life with. if everyone did this, there wouldn't be any of these problems, std's would be significantly reduce or eliminated. I believe that Ideally that is what everyone would do.

 

But in this world there has to be a compromise, people want to have sex but they don't want kids. So If a man want the child and the woman does not, it does not make sense to force the woman to bare the child. if the woman was disallowed abortion, there would be an increased ammount of suicide and attempted abortion (such as with a hanger, which has happened many times) and deformed babies. So the woman should be allowed to chose wether or not to have the child. Now if the woman wants the child and the man does not, the woman should not be forced to abort the child. instead the man should file a legal request to abort the child and if the woman decides to have it, then the man is not responsible for any of the upbringing and can request a non-disclosier from the woman, so that she can't tell anyone he is the father and cannot demand childcare. I believe this would be the best solution, neither are forced to do something they dont want to do.

 

Now I'm prolife but pro abortion. I don't want anyone to abort because they're killing inocent life but i'd rather they have a trained professional do it than deform and mutilate the baby with a hanger. Partial birth abortion is just wrong, if the baby's coming out you dont kill it.

[cwes99_03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

But isn't this what we are suggesting. That in order for all parties to be free to get what they want then another would have to be limited?

 

Yup, there are limits to many things. Respect others' lives and property and there, you got freedom.

 

Ok, so you see the need for limits in order to achieve happiness. Good, you've taken step number one in this hypothetical garden of eden ;-).

 

Quote:

Isn't the man being limited if he wants to be free of the responsibility of the child, when the woman doesn't? Or vice versa, isn't the woman being limited if the man wants the child to be born but she doesn't?

 

That's a matter of two people. Kinda like when they are deciding which house to buy or where to go for vacation next year. They gotta settle an agreement. And the authorities should not be involved, unless it's a special case.

The authorities should not be involved. You are an anti-federalist. Understandably so, you want to make your own decisions. Tell me, how would you make a decision between your wants and anothers when neither side is willing to give? That's what this discussion is about. In order to aid in settling the issue, the government (state or federal or in my perfect society God's law) would have to step in and decide on the matter.

 

Quote:

And what about people going on diets all the time? Aren't they limiting themselves for their own apparent benefit?

 

Yeah, but they are free to limit themselves, it's their own decision; they can flip out of the diet whenever they want to or they can continue with it. This is irrelevant, since they chose to limit themselves to something for a personal reason.

 

So, now you can't go on a diet by a personal decision because of that?

Congrats on seeing the point of my argument but failing to realize it. Yes, people do make decisions to limit themselves all the time for the better good. This goes along with another thread floating around here somewhere I can't remember but I think it was the one on morals. The premise of government according to Thomas Paine is that a group of people make a social contract to give up certain freedoms for the benefit of all. Why can't you give up the freedom of promiscuity for the benefit of decreased divorce rates, abortions, STDs, family disfunction, etc. etc. etc.? I guess it is because you and the majority of others are too selfish.

 

Quote:

At least millions of people try every year and some succeed. By succeeding they learn a lot about their own bodies and what it takes to be healthy. But they had to give up something in order to achieve that.

 

Yeah, so happens with many things to get success. This does not relate anything to this matter. What should society give up to achieve "success"?

Yep you missed how it related to the point. Hopefully you see it now. To achieve a successful society certain limitations would have to be set on said society that benefit them whether they can see it or not. One such limitation would be that which I suggested earlier.

A whole set of such limitations exist in written form in the Bible, but you and others like you fail to see the benefits of that written law. It is your right, but the point of this forum was to suggest how possibly giving up some rights would make society better.

 

Quote:

So getting married means giving up some of your own personal freedoms of maybe sleeping around or doing whatever you want whenever you want. But the ultimate benefit would be having kids and being good parents and being responsible.

 

True. And while you are single you can do "whatever you want", they can marry whenever they want. People can have sex being single and it's their own matter, not the government's or society's. I'll be damned if I have to give such a personal freedom thanks to the ideas of religious people.

 

That's why my suggestion seems like such a radical one. You seem to think that giving up this freedom is only a religious idea. In the morality forum (at least that's where I think it was stated) someone suggested that laws exist to keep people from doing themselves harm, and that this is based upon the Golden Rule, that if you don't want bad things to be done to you then you should not do them to others. Well by making such a strong statement that you don't care if it hurts someone else as long as you are free from some religious right wing way of thinking, you are making a point for the opposite side of that issue.

Quote:

Personally, I'm very tired of all this crap about personal freedom being intruded upon. Step up to responsibility, my friends. GROW UP!

 

Of course, with freedoms you have responsibilities and obligations to respond to. What's the matter? So, now you want to ban sex because of some irresponsible EDIT?

Yep, except I don't want to ban sex, I want to ban fornication as described in the Bible. But then I want to leave it up to God to do so, which is why I don't become involved in politics.

 

What about if we ban cars because stupid people always get drunk and end up running over others and crashing. Would that be fair?

 

Of course not, it's stupid. Same goes with sex.

Actually, banning drunk driving is already a law. Banning extramarital sex is not a law. I don't think that banning extramarital sex is stupid.

[IrishEyes]

This is not a discussion about PRO-LIFE versus PRO-CHOICE, or whether or not abortion should be legal.

This discussion is about whether or not a man's wants should have any bearing on whether or not a woman is allowed to have an abortion. If a man wants to raise a child that he helped to create, should the woman be required to give birth, assuming she will be fully financially compensated for her time and trouble?

If the woman does not want to baby, but the man does, and she gives birth, should the woman be required to pay child support? Currently, most states require a man to pay child support, regardless of if they wanted the child to be born or not. Should the same laws apply for the woman?

 

This is the discussion. Please keep any other aspects of the abortion debate out of this topic. They are not wanted. If they continue, the member will get a negative Rep mark, and I will edit that post to read "Post edited due to member's lack of attention to the topic being discussed."

 

Thanks!

:confused:

[Edge]

Ok, so you see the need for limits in order to achieve happiness. Good, you've taken step number one in this hypothetical garden of eden ;-).

?

 

The authorities should not be involved. You are an anti-federalist. Understandably so, you want to make your own decisions. Tell me, how would you make a decision between your wants and anothers when neither side is willing to give? That's what this discussion is about. In order to aid in settling the issue, the government (state or federal or in my perfect society God's law) would have to step in and decide on the matter.

Ok, for those cases, if there isn't an alternative solution, then yes, use legal action or something. I still think that the mom should have the last say, though.

 

I even said it on my post:

 

That's a matter of two people. Kinda like when they are deciding which house to buy or where to go for vacation next year. They gotta settle an agreement. And the authorities should not be involved, unless it's a special case.

Congrats on seeing the point of my argument but failing to realize it. Yes, people do make decisions to limit themselves all the time for the better good. This goes along with another thread floating around here somewhere I can't remember but I think it was the one on morals. The premise of government according to Thomas Paine is that a group of people make a social contract to give up certain freedoms for the benefit of all.

True

 

Why can't you give up the freedom of promiscuity for the benefit of decreased divorce rates, abortions, STDs, family disfunction, etc. etc. etc.? I guess it is because you and the majority of others are too selfish.

No, that's because it would be too hard and unpractical to ban and try to avoid people having sex with each other out of marriage. Those intentions are good, but the means to try to do it are not practical. Outlawing it would be dumb as well. How would you avoid people from having sex on whatever house they want to? You would have to invade people's privacy in order to do that, and that's wrong. And finally, what harm does it do to anyone that two consenting people have sex out of marriage? Nothing more than bad statistics. Make them be responsible for that action, not outlaw it.

 

Yep you missed how it related to the point. Hopefully you see it now. To achieve a successful society certain limitations would have to be set on said society that benefit them whether they can see it or not. One such limitation would be that which I suggested earlier.

I wonder, OK, in the hypothetical situation that sex out of marriage is outlawed (god forbid), how would you check that people do not do it? What would be the "charges" for it? Or what's the plan? Now, we would have people telling the police "Hey, Mary and John had sex out of marriage yesterday, do something". Yeah, that would be practical and useful. :)

 

Sorry, I'm against making laws that invade my privacy when I'm not even putting other people's health at risk.

 

A whole set of such limitations exist in written form in the Bible, but you and others like you fail to see the benefits of that written law. It is your right, but the point of this forum was to suggest how possibly giving up some rights would make society better.

Well, if you want an authoritarian government, then it's your opinion. What would be next? Checking that people do not access adult sites?

 

That's why my suggestion seems like such a radical one. You seem to think that giving up this freedom is only a religious idea. In the morality forum (at least that's where I think it was stated) someone suggested that laws exist to keep people from doing themselves harm, and that this is based upon the Golden Rule, that if you don't want bad things to be done to you then you should not do them to others.

How does fornication affects other people rather than the ones who decide to do so? If they consent to do so with each other and they are mature enough, then let them. It does not affect others than them.

Well by making such a strong statement that you don't care if it hurts someone else as long as you are free from some religious right wing way of thinking, you are making a point for the opposite side of that issue.

Does it hurt you that people out of marriage are having sex right now? I doubt so.

 

Yep, except I don't want to ban sex, I want to ban fornication as described in the Bible. But then I want to leave it up to God to do so, which is why I don't become involved in politics.

Even if god exists, he/she won't do anything. You forget the gift of the free will.

 

Actually, banning drunk driving is already a law. Banning extramarital sex is not a law. I don't think that banning extramarital sex is stupid.

And why does drunk driving is banned? Yeah, because it puts other people's lives at risk. Does extramarital sex do that? Nope. There is no good reason for banning it.

[cwes99_03]

Ok, you call them special cases. However, these special cases are occuring quite frequently. Especially when you weigh in the number of biological fathers who want nothing to do with the children they father.

 

It would be no harder to ban, than say banning drug use, drunk driving, etc. Those who are discreet will get away with it a lot. Even those who aren't discreet will get away with it a lot. People speed all the time, but it is illegal. People get away with driving 75 in a 55 around my brothers house all the time (my brother is one of them.) Eventually though they get caught because something happens. Those who get pregnant would get caught for obvious reasons.

And actually I am trying to make them responsible. I'm saying that they would be forced into responsibility by forcing them to raise the kid(s) together. And, I stipulated that they would be mandated to work things out, because the alternative would be both parties end up in jail.

 

Sorry, I'm against making laws that invade my privacy when I'm not even putting other people's health at risk.

Ah but you are. You are putting your own health at risk. You are putting your partners health at risk. You are putting the health of any child that is conceived at risk. You are putting all futur partners of either side of the coupling at risk (don't forget STDs like AIDS.) Let's also not forget all the tax monies that go toward supporting these single parents who cant work because they have to raise the kids, or may work and support their kids, but require supplement from the government.

Well, if you want an authoritarian government, then it's your opinion. What would be next? Checking that people do not access adult sites?

Actually I would only ever support a theocratic government (and I'm not saying one run by religious figures who think they know best. I'm talking about a kingdom run by God and those who he selects through Biblical standards, or say holy spirit. This of course, IMHO, will only come after Armageddon (no I don't mean a war that destroys the earth or anything that apocalyptic, though I'm not ruling that out either.)

 

Even if god exists, he/she won't do anything. You forget the gift of the free will.

Huge assumption here. What are you basing your belief off of?

[Edge]

Ok, you call them special cases. However, these special cases are occuring quite frequently. Especially when you weigh in the number of biological fathers who want nothing to do with the children they father.

Yeah, Ok, they have to, they should be responsible for them. Although, I would say that if the mother agrees that the irresponsible father to be left out of the child, well let her, of course, the father should lose all his legal rights over the child.

 

It would be no harder to ban, than say banning drug use, drunk driving, etc. Those who are discreet will get away with it a lot.

I'm actually for legalizing drugs just like beer. If someone feels like druggin himself/herself, then let that person to do so.

Even those who aren't discreet will get away with it a lot. People speed all the time, but it is illegal. People get away with driving 75 in a 55 around my brothers house all the time (my brother is one of them.) Eventually though they get caught because something happens.

And that something is usually a crash or an accident. Which puts at risk the lives and health of other people.

Those who get pregnant would get caught for obvious reasons.

And actually I am trying to make them responsible. I'm saying that they would be forced into responsibility by forcing them to raise the kid(s) together. And, I stipulated that they would be mandated to work things out, because the alternative would be both parties end up in jail.

You say force them to raise the kid(s) together and if they can't work things out then go to jail. I'm sorry, but WHAT?

 

Say the mother wants to raise the child and the father don't. Should the mother be sent to jail for that? Because she wants to be responsible for that?

 

And I'm sorry, but throwing them to jail is not good as well. Just force them to pay for child support like it is right now... or if the father/mother wants to flip out and the mother/father agrees then let that person not longer pay child support, but on the other side that person won't be longer their legal father/mother.

 

I'm sorry, but jail is not for that. Is not for people who use drugs either.

 

Ah but you are. You are putting your own health at risk.

Which is my own problem... I, literally, also put my health at risk when I drive, when I go to make a Bunjee jump, etc.

You are putting your partners health at risk.

That person agreed to have sex with me. If that person is an adult then she should know what she's doing.

 

When I'm driving and there's more people in the car they are at risk too. We should ban cars as well, according to your logic.

You are putting the health of any child that is conceived at risk.

You are saying that every couple who have extramarital sex is going to abort?

 

Also, it seems that you are implying that if you have sex when you are married then the baby will be born perfectly. I'm sorry, sometimes babies have health problems when they are born, or when they are inside the uterus. Many of those times are an accident... nothing to act on.

 

You are putting all futur partners of either side of the coupling at risk (don't forget STDs like AIDS.)

No, I'm not. Is my partner who does. She decide to have sex with those people. I never forced her and her future partners.

 

I also put people at risk when I lend someone else my car. Should we ban driving?

 

Let's also not forget all the tax monies that go toward supporting these single parents who cant work because they have to raise the kids, or may work and support their kids, but require supplement from the government.

If they are indeed trying to get succesful while raising their kids, then I'm all for the government helping them. I'm against the government helping people who are not willing to work... unless they really can't for physical disabilities or something of the sort.

 

Actually I would only ever support a theocratic government (and I'm not saying one run by religious figures who think they know best. I'm talking about a kingdom run by God and those who he selects through Biblical standards, or say holy spirit. This of course, IMHO, will only come after Armageddon (no I don't mean a war that destroys the earth or anything that apocalyptic, though I'm not ruling that out either.)

Well, god gave us the Earth to the humans, I don't know why. Whenever you see god on the street ask him to rule your country. :hihi:

 

Huge assumption here. What are you basing your belief off of?

Well, last time I saw on the Bible, god gave us humans the gift to act in whatever way we want to. God would ban all those bad things, but he won't take our ability to do whatever we want to, that would be against his word.

[cwes99_03]

Yeah, Ok, they have to, they should be responsible for them. Although, I would say that if the mother agrees that the irresponsible father to be left out of the child, well let her, of course, the father should lose all his legal rights over the child.

Say the mother wants to raise the child and the father don't. Should the mother be sent to jail for that? Because she wants to be responsible for that?

And I'm sorry, but throwing them to jail is not good as well. Just force them to pay for child support like it is right now... or if the father/mother wants to flip out and the mother/father agrees then let that person not longer pay child support, but on the other side that person won't be longer their legal father/mother.

If they are indeed trying to get succesful while raising their kids, then I'm all for the government helping them. I'm against the government helping people who are not willing to work... unless they really can't for physical disabilities or something of the sort.

Well, here we have a bit of a cunundrum. You don't want to give up your rights to a federalist government. But you want every other person to give up their money (and the right to do with it as they please) so that you can screw up, be promiscuous and let the government pay to raise your illegitimate children? Illegitimate is the legal term. I'm not saying there is any defect or wrong commited by the child, just by the biological parents of said child.

We also have a bit of a problem, because you think that the father should be able to be freed from paying support if the mother agrees, but you think that everyone else should have to support the child. Sounds screwy to me. I didn't get the woman pregnant.

Additionally, how do you determine whether someone is trying to be successful? I think that is even harder than trying to determine whether two people have been having sex outside of marriage.

Well, last time I saw on the Bible, god gave us humans the gift to act in whatever way we want to. God would ban all those bad things, but he won't take our ability to do whatever we want to, that would be against his word.

Hmm, when was the last time you read the Bible. Ever hear of the 10 commandments? Anyone else care to comment on that. Well, it isn't really on thread topic. Maybe that can be taken elsewhere.

I'm actually for legalizing drugs just like beer. If someone feels like druggin himself/herself, then let that person to do so.

Seeing how you don't think drugs are harmful to anyone, even yourself, well I guess you must be right and I must be wrong. No one ever died, or killed someone else by taking drugs. And lots of positive things must have been done while some hopped up, drugged out reafer was developing cold fusion.

And that something is usually a crash or an accident. Which puts at risk the lives and health of other people.

Why is it that you can see the harmful effects of driving too fast, but not of using drugs?

Which is my own problem... I, literally, also put my health at risk when I drive, when I go to make a Bunjee jump, etc.

You must be one heck of a bad driver. I don't think I'm putting my life at risk each time I get behind the wheel. I fell that I am a responsible driver. I also don't bungee jump or engage in "stupid acts" (my wording) that put my life at risk just for a little rush of adrenaline.

You are putting all future partners of either side of the coupling at risk (don't forget STDs like AIDS.)

 

No, I'm not. Is my partner who does. She decide to have sex with those people. I never forced her and her future partners.

So you are only ever going to have sex with one person? That would be the only way you never put the life of future partners at risk. And then if you only have sex with a single partner, then isn't that a monogamous relationship?

 

P.S. The God of the Bible can read hearts. He also knows what you are doing whether or not you think he does. Doesn't that sound like a great ruler, someone who can always tell when you aren't doing right? Even if you don't agree he exists, look at it like a story. Doesn't it sound like a better life than what we have if we were to submit to such a rulership?

[IrishEyes]

This is not, let me repeat again - NOT a religious discussion.

This is not about whether or not two people should be married before having sex.

This is not about government aid to single parents.

This is not about drunk driving.

This is not about drug use.

 

This is about whether or not a man should have some say not to terminate a pregnancy if his female partner conceives during an act of consensual sex.

 

If anyone else has anything to add to the discussion that goes along with the topic, PLEASE feel free to post it. Otherwise, take some of these other ideas and get some new threads started.

Thanks guys!!

:)

[cwes99_03]

That being said, I only say I don't think it is a solution either way, but rather monogomy in a marriage bond is the only solution to such problems.

 

However, do I think that under the current law of the land that it would be allowed. No. Quite simply, I don't think anyone pushing for anti-abortion law or in this case, for forcing a woman to carry to term an unwanted fetus because of the will of anyone else is possible. The law is clear that insofar as laws try to regulate someone's right to do to their body as they see fit, only laws preventing people from killing themselves or doing harm to others are constitutional. As of yet, "others" does not include the unborn.

If this changes in the near future, then you would have to revisit the topic.

[IrishEyes]

To ALL particpants in this thread...

Nemo asked me to say thanks to all those that responded. He's using your input in his thesis, and will post portions as it becomes available.

Good discussion, guys... :)