Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
theoretical ethical question
This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.
Mon Jun 30, 2003 1:45 pm
I would Marry the Women in question, for the reason that a Child realy needs 2 parents a Mother and a Father. Don't get me wrong I think Single Parent familes are fine and do work, it's does the way I feel. I would also marry her because I love her, If we were going out that is
"A TopGun through and through"
"A TopGun through and through"
Mon Jun 30, 2003 5:55 pm
FF,
Stop me if I get this wrong. You say 1) it is SOLELY the woman's right to reproduce (PppyChow's original statement: "ultimatley its the womans choice wheter to abort or not" ). 2)The man (her partner) has a responsibility for that decision, whether he was in favor of it or not.
Let's test this. What if the woman chooses to "reproduce" through adoption or chooses to reproduce with another man. Does her partner still have a responsibility to support the woman and child in these cases?
Edit: no wink intended
Edited by - Cynicism Inc. on 30-06-2003 20:43:14
Stop me if I get this wrong. You say 1) it is SOLELY the woman's right to reproduce (PppyChow's original statement: "ultimatley its the womans choice wheter to abort or not" ). 2)The man (her partner) has a responsibility for that decision, whether he was in favor of it or not.
Let's test this. What if the woman chooses to "reproduce" through adoption or chooses to reproduce with another man. Does her partner still have a responsibility to support the woman and child in these cases?
Edit: no wink intended
Edited by - Cynicism Inc. on 30-06-2003 20:43:14
Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:40 pm
ok, heres my take.
i'm all for abortion, i'm so pro choice you wouldnt beleive it
. now suppose this bird and this guy hook up, do the business and she gets lumbered with a bun in the oven. now she has two choices at THIS stage, get the man involved or not. If she gets the man involved, she has pretty much relinquised 50% of the control in my mind, its now the guys kid as much as it is hers.
now again the woman has two choices, keep or terminate, depending on the decision of the first choice, she could me making this decision on her own or with her mans help.
Now i beleive that the man should have legaly, a fair bit of say over the continued existence of that faetus.
Think about it this way:
you and a mate get drunk one night and while drunk you buy a new car.
in the morning you wake up in your bed and find the keys to the car in your pocket. Now this car is lovely, a real beautie, but you signed up for an intrest free credit agreement so youre gonna be paying for it in monthly installments, money you dont have at your age, but your friend does.
So now the first problem arises, cause you both put the initial deposit down on the car and both your names are on the contract. so you opt to tell your mate that day.
your mate has a HUGE problem with the car, hes saving up to go on holiday, he has a piddly job and prefers riding bikes, he wants to anul the agreement from the dealership and get their deposit back, but you wanna keep it.
so if you think about it, they both have valid reasons, and just because YOU have the keys to the car in your pocket doesnt mean you should have any more say in the matter. YOU involved your mate in it, shut up moaning cause your mate doesnt see eye to eye with you. My advice, sell the car wait until you have the money, dont buy the car then sell it on, or force your mate into having a car he doesnt want just to make you happy. Remember, there are plenty more dealers out there who have brand new cars for you.
-arcon
------
i'm all for abortion, i'm so pro choice you wouldnt beleive it
. now suppose this bird and this guy hook up, do the business and she gets lumbered with a bun in the oven. now she has two choices at THIS stage, get the man involved or not. If she gets the man involved, she has pretty much relinquised 50% of the control in my mind, its now the guys kid as much as it is hers.
now again the woman has two choices, keep or terminate, depending on the decision of the first choice, she could me making this decision on her own or with her mans help.
Now i beleive that the man should have legaly, a fair bit of say over the continued existence of that faetus.
Think about it this way:
you and a mate get drunk one night and while drunk you buy a new car.
in the morning you wake up in your bed and find the keys to the car in your pocket. Now this car is lovely, a real beautie, but you signed up for an intrest free credit agreement so youre gonna be paying for it in monthly installments, money you dont have at your age, but your friend does.
So now the first problem arises, cause you both put the initial deposit down on the car and both your names are on the contract. so you opt to tell your mate that day.
your mate has a HUGE problem with the car, hes saving up to go on holiday, he has a piddly job and prefers riding bikes, he wants to anul the agreement from the dealership and get their deposit back, but you wanna keep it.
so if you think about it, they both have valid reasons, and just because YOU have the keys to the car in your pocket doesnt mean you should have any more say in the matter. YOU involved your mate in it, shut up moaning cause your mate doesnt see eye to eye with you. My advice, sell the car wait until you have the money, dont buy the car then sell it on, or force your mate into having a car he doesnt want just to make you happy. Remember, there are plenty more dealers out there who have brand new cars for you.
-arcon
------
Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:53 pm
Are you talking to Freighter Fighter of me? we're both FFs you know 
.
If the man is the biological father, then he's responsible, at least financially, to support the baby. Example: girl gets pregnant, boy wants girl to abort, while girl decides to keep the baby. Boy is STILL responsible for the baby. You may argue that it's not fair to the father, after all, he didn't want to have the baby, right? wrong. He should've thought about that before getting the girl pregnant. Life is not always fair, **** happens. Why do it with a pro-life girl in the 1st place? he should've known the girl well enough to know that she was pro-life before they started to do it, and knew well enough that having sex, despite the best contraceptive efforts, still had risks.
If you're so eager to cover your ass, make sure that the girl you do it with is at least pro-choice (remember, even being pro-choice does not mean that she'll instantly abort the fetus in case of accidental pregnancy, it only means that she's keeping that option open). What, she's totally hot and you're totally in love with her, but she's pro-life? ok, but proceed at your own risk.
.
If the man is the biological father, then he's responsible, at least financially, to support the baby. Example: girl gets pregnant, boy wants girl to abort, while girl decides to keep the baby. Boy is STILL responsible for the baby. You may argue that it's not fair to the father, after all, he didn't want to have the baby, right? wrong. He should've thought about that before getting the girl pregnant. Life is not always fair, **** happens. Why do it with a pro-life girl in the 1st place? he should've known the girl well enough to know that she was pro-life before they started to do it, and knew well enough that having sex, despite the best contraceptive efforts, still had risks.
If you're so eager to cover your ass, make sure that the girl you do it with is at least pro-choice (remember, even being pro-choice does not mean that she'll instantly abort the fetus in case of accidental pregnancy, it only means that she's keeping that option open). What, she's totally hot and you're totally in love with her, but she's pro-life? ok, but proceed at your own risk.
Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:25 pm
So now you’re saying being pro-life is bad. If I was pregnant and didn't want the baby...I would give it up, not kill it. I would at least try and give it a chance to grow and succeed. Yes, it would be very hard to give up a baby, but I think it would be harder to kill the baby. Yes, I would lose my figure, but come on....I (and my partner in crime) made that thing, I think I at least owe it to the baby to let it survive, even at the cost of my skinniness. Yes, it would be 9 months of general craziness, but that’s something that I would deal with. This is my opinion now. I have never had to deal with this, so I can not say with certainty what I would do. My thoughts on this subject might change if I was actually the one dealing with this problem. I want to be married and through school before I actually have kids.
Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:32 pm
I had been talking to FreighterFighter by name, but really it was to anyone who cared to read the board.
PppyChow, the Pro-Life crowd wants to outlaw abortion (and all kinds of other means of birthcontrol as well, I'm sure). Pro-Choice is exactly that - make the technology availible for those who choose to use it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's required.
FF (Fear Factor), Let's see if I get this argument right.
1) Women have absolute control over reproduction, ie the option to abort.
2) Men are obligated to support women who choose to reproduce
3) Men's only option in the reproduction discussion is to avoid sex. Otherwise
Caveat Emptor. Is that right?
The Cynical Interpretation (TM) of those statements:
Women can either have sex and have a baby, or have sex and not have a baby.
Or, to say it another way,
Women can have sex to reproduce, or have sex for reasons other than reproduction (ie. pleasure).
Men can choose to have sex, or not have sex. In the first case, they are commited to the outcome. Or to say it another way, they must be prepared to reproduce, they have no other option.
To sum up all of that in one sentence: women can have sex to reproduce, or for pleasure, but men can only have sex to reproduce. That's a drastic statement. The very nature of sex (the act) is limited by sex (the atribute). Anyone like this idea? I certanly don't.
I'm also interested in why you connected the responsiblity with the biological father instead of a life-partern.
PppyChow, the Pro-Life crowd wants to outlaw abortion (and all kinds of other means of birthcontrol as well, I'm sure). Pro-Choice is exactly that - make the technology availible for those who choose to use it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's required.
FF (Fear Factor), Let's see if I get this argument right.
1) Women have absolute control over reproduction, ie the option to abort.
2) Men are obligated to support women who choose to reproduce
3) Men's only option in the reproduction discussion is to avoid sex. Otherwise
Caveat Emptor. Is that right?
The Cynical Interpretation (TM) of those statements:
Women can either have sex and have a baby, or have sex and not have a baby.
Or, to say it another way,
Women can have sex to reproduce, or have sex for reasons other than reproduction (ie. pleasure).
Men can choose to have sex, or not have sex. In the first case, they are commited to the outcome. Or to say it another way, they must be prepared to reproduce, they have no other option.
To sum up all of that in one sentence: women can have sex to reproduce, or for pleasure, but men can only have sex to reproduce. That's a drastic statement. The very nature of sex (the act) is limited by sex (the atribute). Anyone like this idea? I certanly don't.
I'm also interested in why you connected the responsiblity with the biological father instead of a life-partern.
Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:25 pm
It's not cynical. It's Socratic. Acorn I think is a lot more cynical than I. And it's not an extreme. The argument that women can choose, men must accept, argues that men are breeders only. I think it is necessarily flawed because of the conclusion. But, PppyChow, tell me where you think I took this to "an extreme."
BTW, I'm not british... born and bred in Washington State, USA. My grandfather was though
BTW, I'm not british... born and bred in Washington State, USA. My grandfather was though
Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:54 pm
PppyChow, the Pro-Life crowd wants to outlaw abortion (and all kinds of other means of birthcontrol as well, I'm sure). Pro-Choice is exactly that - make the technology availible for those who choose to use it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's required.
Where the hell did you get this? most pro-lifes are supportive birth control methods other than abortion. I'm pro-choice AND pro-life at the same time btw, while I don't think abortion is the right thing to do, I do want to keep the option open for those that do not agree with me.
I do not usually take feminist standpoint, but women do call the big shots when it comes to keeping the baby or not. They're the ones who undertake the risk of bleeding to death during an abortion procedure, or if the other way around, stuck with the baby for 9 months, not counting the breastfeeding and the upbringing (assuming she does not give her up for adoption). Whichever they choose, they're the ones who get the short sticks. So Cynicism, I don't care with your "it's not fair to the men it's not fair to the men" whining - the very concept of "fairness" has gone down the toilet the moment that accidental pregnancy occurs. If anyone's being treated unfairly here - it's the women.
I'm also interested in why you connected the responsiblity with the biological father instead of a life-partern.
Because if the father is not biological (ie child obtained by adoption or artificial insemination), he is not bound by any convention (legal, moral, or ethical) to participate in the child's upbringing. He may CHOOSE to, but if he had not participated/rejected to participate in the child's bringing into existence, he can't be held accountable. Simply put, non-willing non-biological father has the choice to contribute to the child's life or not, up to him. A biological parent has already made that choice, willing or not. He clearly contributed his precious sperm which leads to the existence of the child. Once again, yes, caveat emptor.
Edited by - Fear Factor on 01-07-2003 01:16:54
Tue Jul 01, 2003 12:08 am
Is it a flamethrower I see? Or maybe a napalm canister... Take it easy, people, nobody's forcing anybody into an abortion, it's just a damn duscussion... Clash of opinions is OK, but I can feel the tension thickening to a point where you can cut it with a knife...
Oh, and
Oh, and
lol, Acorn
Acorn I think is a lot more cynical than I.