This is what I was attempting to argue. Thank you for your more eloquent version of true fairness in these matters.
Sex does not necessitate children. And anyone who argues about the consequences and how you assume the risk is obviously naive when applying this reasoning. Do you not feel sympathy for people in killed in traffic accidents? Why should you? They assumed the risk, even if they were hit by a drunk driver. It was their fault for participating in risky behavior, yes?
What about children going to school only to be shot by some cry-baby emo kid? The innocents took the risk and as such should have expected this outcome, yes? Give me a break! I know you nay-sayers will argue that these are extreme examples, and they are meant to be. But the same garbage reasoning is used. If you know something could happen, you must assume the consequences. Poor reasoning is a poor way to conduct a society. Such is the state of modern man I suppose.
I believe this is the same crap reasoning that people use when they take the NIMBY approach to nuclear power plants, more prisons, or the affirmative action arguments.
I look at it in this way. Forget responsibility over the child. When two people get together and have sex, the possible result is 9 months of pain for the women. Any action we commit today that causes pain, intentional or unintentional, we have to pay damages (by the US legal system) Heres an analogy to sex:
A pedestrian takes the risk to cross the street. He knows theres a chance to get hit by a car. A driver takes the risk of hitting a pedestrian with a car when he drives. They both take this risk consentually. Yet when the driver accidentally hits the pedestrian, he must pay damages. I agree with this system. Now the analogy is that women are the pedestrians, men are the drivers, and getting pregnant is like getting hit by a car… heh. So men must pay damages for causing the pain of pregnancy. Now in the car accident analogy, the pedestrian can kindly choose not to sue or ask for damages. They can say: hell, it was an acident, I forgive you. This is analogous to having an abortion. Women are the ones getting hit by the cars, so thats why they have the choice to make us men pay or not. Whats wrong with this analogy?
Edit: Just realised that this allows for fraud. Just like a pedestrian can intentionally try to get hit by a car to obtain damage payments, the women can intentionally try to get pregnant. So how is fraud for damages worked out in the US legal system? Only if the pedestrian’s intentions can be proven? Is that how it works?
I think that the “right” thing to do is for the male to take responsibility for any and all pain he may cause (referring to “pregnancy and child-birth”) – however, it is not “right” to legislate in favor of a morality that does not represent “the people”.
I think a good example (for taking responsibility for the child, but not the pregnancy) would be – when a person owns a car, they assume the risk involved in operating it. If they give someone a ride and get into an accident, they still assume all the risk in damages (pregnancy, child-birth) ('cause the driver of the other car was Mother Nature in a VW van, and she took off w/o leaving her insurance information). This doesn’t mean the passengers can’t chip in – it just means they are not obligated. However, if they are giving someone a ride on a consistent basis (a baby is conceived and born), and the mileage being put on the car is due to the fact that they are giving this person a ride on a regular basis (again, the baby is conceived and born) – then that person should chip in to pay for stuff like gas, oil changes, maybe even tires, etc. (expenses in caring for the child) – but the owner still ultimately assumes the risk for what happens to the car in an accident (pregnancy, child-birth).
If the potential-passenger basically has no choice in whether or not he gets those consistent rides (in whether or not the baby is born) – you know… he is /forced/ to take rides even if he doesn’t want them (the child is born) or not to take rides even though he really wants them (the child is aborted)… then he /should/ have a choice in whether or not he pays for the long-term car-care expenses (if he wants the rides and gets them, he pays; if he doesn’t want the rides but gets them anyway, he doesn’t pay).
The express purpose of sex is to procreate; the pleasurable aspects of it are merely a by-product of sexual intercourse. Now, the only way that your scenarios would work is if students attended school intending to get shot but wishing to engage in the by-product of learning something, or if people got into cars because they wanted to get into accidents but managed to get to their travel destination instead.
Before you enter into a discussion of parental responsibility, I think there should be more discussion about how the purpose of sexual intercourse has changed. As many people have already mentioned in this thread, if two people agree to copulate, those two people mutually agree to address the consequences. I don’t think the father should be ignored in decisions to abort or to keep the child (or potential child). I also don’t think the father should be allowed “to opt out” because if it weren’t for the father’s initial input a baby could not have resulted in the first place. Just because the woman carries the baby to term does not mean the man’s job is done at copulation.
If there was a way to allow men to carry babies to term, would the conditions somehow change?
Not last time I had sex. In fact, that has never been my purpose in having sex. If it was, I would feel like a complete failure for all the hundreds of times I didn’t ‘succeed’.
The only people who believe the ‘express purpose of sex is to procreate’ are probably extremely religious to the point of being fanatical. I would even go so far as to wager that 90% of the populace of the non-third world countries, view sex as a pleasure first experience, with pregnancy being some sort of disaterous, unwanted side-effect.
Skyewriter, the express purpose of sex is not to procreate. It is the evolutionary purpose of sex, but in today’s society, sex is definatly used more for pleasure. So you saying about Crooked’s scenarios that they only work if kids going to school intend to get shot is not correct. Analogy: A building was created long ago with the purpose of public execution. It was designed with execution in mind. Overtime, people stopped being so violent, and decided to turn the building into a school. Now its used for learning. Can you then say the kids that go to the school intend to get executed? No, execution was the original purpose of the building sure, but no longer… Just because sex’s biological purpose is procreation doesn’t mean we cant change its purpose to whatever we want. So sex’s purpose is whatever the people having sex intend its purpose to be. Thats all.
Personally, Im starting to think that men should be able to opt out if the women doesn’t choose to abort the baby. The women has an easy, legal option to avoid any of the negative consequences of sex. Yes, abortion is a very tender issue, but if its legal, than I would have to say that any personal feelings about abortion that would cause the women to forgo it are irational. I dont think the man should suffer over the irrational acts of the women. The only consequences imposed on the women for choosing abortion are her own, and maybe her family may be upset about it, but again, the man should not suffer because of the irrational feelings of the women’s family or friends. Abortion has no legal consequences. Its a perfect avenue to avoid the negative consequences of sex. Abortion pretty much eliminates sex from the picture. It becomes more of an adoption. Once the women finds out she is pregnent, she contacts the man and says: “would you to have this baby with me?” If the man says no, than the women can decide being a single mother isn’t worth it, or she can try to raise the child herself. Just like an adoption. Get the baby or not, if your man doesn’t like the idea of being a father, than its your choice alone. But I stick to the idea that while Abortion is legal, the man shouldn’t be forced to suffer. Though he should definatly pay for at least half of the abortion procedure. That makes sense.
Extreme examples require extreme examples (fight fire with fire?) I’m brilliant no?
First: Having sympathy does not necessitate any legalities.
Second: The “car/driver” and “pedestrian” have NOT entered into a consentual partnership but rather it is more of a “joint venture.” Different risks are assumed in joint ventures versus partnerships. In a join venture my company is not responsible of ALL of the same liabilities as that of my associate company. In a parternship, all risks are assumed equally between my company and my partner (unless there is a waiver/clause in the agreement but that is neither here nor there).
Third: Regarding the emo kid/gun shot victim. You leave out a few possibilities:
The school/school district could arguably be held responsible since they are there to provide a safe environment. This is the partnership scenario between local governments and its citizens.
The children involved are in a “joint venture” in society whereby the agreement is not to kill each other. A violation of this would allow one of the victim to sue the emo kid.
The school could sue the emo kid (or legal guardian) for creating an irresponsible world.
CROOKED… I suspect you would be for the following, so you may appreciate this: “We’re coming out! Guns blazing!” That was Pacino’s character talking about how lawyers would get acquital after acquital until the stench of it reaches so high “It chokes the whole bloody lot of 'em” So, if your suggestion is that we should move into a society where the law is GOD then I agree! (NAME THAT MOVIE)
In this world we can have contracts that would stipulate that women accept full responsibility for a unwanted pregnancy. We could add all kinds of beautiful stipulations, clauses, terms, conditions…
Lastly, take the advice that a famous lawyer (NAME THAT LAWYER) gave to a child that said he wanted to become a lawyer: "Good for you son. If there is one thing this country needs it’s more lawyers. Can you imagine a world without lawyers? imagine everyone worlwide holding hands under a rainbow
actually you answered your own dilemma. take responsibilty for your own actions. it sounds as though you , in some ways, don’t trust women. so become gay. no worries. otherwise grow up, and be a man. it takes two to tango.
you also assume the women “wants a child” by you, very presumputous. and that you are good enough to her for her to want a child by you. maybe she just wants a good time like you. maybe your ego guides your thoughts on this.
