Women that have abortions because they're "not ready" are scumbags.

[panamaican]

Sup guy, been a while.

I think going from 1 to C above is a little cray cray and would be at the very least overly cumbersome to demonstrate in strictly logical terms. It's probably easier for everyone if we parse what pan originally said in terms of language alone.

The part of his statement he numbered (1) was "it's okay to not marry a woman that you got pregnant". Before going any further we should probably acknowledge that this statement is going to be difficult to use because it's a moral claim and it's not clear what is meant exactly by the ambiguous term "okay". Is it acceptable, permissible, desirable, etc? Based on the context of the thread I'm going to use permissible, meaning something closer to tolerated rather than desirable. @panamaican feel free to correct me if you meant something different.

The following part of his statement is (2) "it's okay to get a woman pregnant that you do not intend to marry" has a close relationship to (1), with the difference being the time-order of events (in (1) she's already pregnant and you're refusing to marry her, in (2) she's not yet pregnant but you have no intention to marry her even if you were to make her pregnant). If you imagine yourself in both positions, you might think that (2) is just a little foresight into a sequence of events that lead to (1), but that foresight might be actually morally relevant.

As an analogy, imagine a situation where a child is sitting at a table completing a colouring book with a glass of milk placed very close to the edge of the table, that he then knocks over. The child's guardian determines that it was an accident and thus the child is not strongly morally culpable for the mistake - in other words, the child knocking over the glass is tolerable, or in our case "okay". However the adult would still prefer that the child not place glasses of milk so close to the edge of the table in the future. If the child were to repeat that behaviour and attempt to justify it by appealing to the tolerance he was shown for knocking over the glass previously, I don't think he would have much of a case. We would judge him more harshly for placing a second glass in the same spot, and it would be less "okay".

So if (1) it's okay to knock over a glass of milk sitting at the edge of the table doesn't lead to (2) it's okay to place a glass of milk at the edge of the table

then I don't think we can say

(1) it's okay not to marry a woman you got pregnant leads to (2) it's okay to impregnate a woman you do not intend to marry.

Or at least we can't say it and claim to have constructed a valid argument.

Just to be clear, we could maintain that both cases are still "okay" in the weak sense that they're not the worst things a person a could do, and wouldn't require capital punishment or something in response, and you might even still be friends with that person afterwards, but that still leaves room for (2) to be less okay than (1) due to the explicit acknowledgement of the risk.

My analogy also presupposes that spilling milk is a bad thing, but it was built specifically to see if there was any room for disagreement with pan's statements. I could have sterilized it like so:

(1) It's okay to knock a bouncy ball off the edge of the table, therefore (2) it's okay to place a bouncy ball at the edge of the table where it might be knocked over.

...and I don't think anyone would think twice about the reasoning there, due to the new connotation of "okay" as "absolutely acceptable".

Hope that all makes sense. Caveat out!

My only disagreement is that your analogy includes a repeat of the scenario following chastisement, which of course changes things.

If it's tolerable to knock over a glass of milk the first time is very different from if it's tolerable to repeat that action after some form of reproach. The intervening reproach changes the relationship between the 2 statements.

If the action was truly tolerable then the parents would never reproach the child for knocking over the glass the first time and so a second time wouldn't be treated any differently. At least, that's my interpretation of that part of your post.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm going to disagree on the risk-taking element but it's not really my primary point. Men are perceived as more risk-taking. But it's not clear if that is a biological issue or a social/psychological one. Meaning that because we perceive men as less risk averse, we're more likely to support men who undertake risky ventures. This has obvious implications in the boardroom or other social acceptance venues. A woman who proposes a risky path is going to get less social support than a woman who proposes a safer path. Put that into effect up the food chain and risk-taking women don't advance or get the social feedback to continue being risk takers. Accordingly, they adjust their behavior towards more risk averse choices to maximize social acceptanve.

https://hbr.org/2013/02/do-women-take-as-many-risks-as

This is interesting in how it separates out risk aversion from ambiguity aversion and how psychological differences. That while risk aversion does change with gender, ambiguity aversion does not. Which is intriguing since it's psychological factors that explain the risk aversion but those factors have no effect on the ambiguity aversion.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14713.pdf

Alright so I got lazy and only read a part of your links. Here are a few points I'll throw out there that don't necessarily refute your point but just something to think about.

For one, there are parts of your link that do mention that there are gender differences in risk aversion with a biological basis in the brain. Now, that doesn't mean its innate because our brains are formed party in response to our environments but it seems like the jury is still out on whether these differences are entirely social, biological, or a mix of both(what I imagine they likely are)

Second, even if its a result of social conditioning I don't necessarily accept that this is on its own enough of a justification against legislating while taking this into account. A social reality is still a reality and legislating in response to them makes some sense. Of course I can also understand not wanting to legislate in response to them and instead focusing on changing the social reality or at the very least being wary of taking these social factors into account when legislating family law or reproductive rights. It also depends on how deeply ingrained these socially conditioned differences are. Some such socially conditioned differences might be very recent and ephemeral ones while others might be heavily ingrained within our society such that they might as well become accepted as a constant variable.

I think we have to draw a strong distinction between physical differences and social differences and that sometimes gets conflated. Women get pregnant, men don't. But the social roles of women and men are not that black and white. There is nothing that says that because a woman gets pregnant she can't be the head of household or primary breadwinner or decision maker.

The law does make that distinction, it's the people who don't. When it comes to financial elements, the law is gender neutral because it has to treat a female millionaire with a stay at home dad the same way it treats a male millionaire with a stay at home wife. That there are more of the latter than the former is not the law's fault.

I do disagree with the "basic needs" element of child support that people put forward. If the couple was married, the parent paying child support would not limit their financial participation to the child's basic needs. So, following a divorce, the child should not be forced to accept the lower standard.

But beyond those points, I agree that you should pay for the child you sire. Just because your relationship with the woman changed doesn't mean that your financial responsibility to the child has changed. Which is what people essentially argue - that when the guy was married and making $250k, the child enjoyed a lifestyle in line with those earnings but when the guy gets divorced, the child's lifestyle should change to match that of just the mother. It's an argument that divorced fathers are entitled to reduce their economic responsibility to their child just because they no longer have a marital relationship with the mother.

You're talking about child support in the context of a divorce, in which case I would agree. The father in that case decided to make a commitment to the family unit which includes the child and that commitment should continue after the marriage dissolves. The only exception would be in the case where he finds he has been raising the child of another man. In such a case I think its only fair that he should be let off the hook since he has been deceived. I generally think its better to put the needs of the child over that of the father but in that kind of case I personally feel a line has to be drawn, its a bit of an injustice against the man at that point.

I was, however, talking about child support in the context of an unwanted pregnancy resulting from casual sex. The mother in that case has no reason to expect the kind of commitment a wife would from her husband. In those cases I think only the basic needs of the child should be extracted from the father and ideally there should be some oversight ensuring the funds are spent on the child though such a mechanism might be more trouble than its worth.

 

[Bat Dad]

Asshole thread and sexist as well.

Bad bad bad.

Die in a fire

 

[snakedafunky]

Whether or not it is a scumbag thing to do depends on whether you think it is immoral to kill a fetus. If you accept that human life begins at the moment of conception, then contraceptives are not immoral and abortion is. It has nothing to do with weighing out the benefits.

Yes, it does. If people think human life is so valuable why don't they go and donate a kidney to people in need?
Because they weight the benefits.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

My only disagreement is that your analogy includes a repeat of the scenario following chastisement, which of course changes things.

If it's tolerable to knock over a glass of milk the first time is very different from if it's tolerable to repeat that action after some form of reproach. The intervening reproach changes the relationship between the 2 statements.

If the action was truly tolerable then the parents would never reproach the child for knocking over the glass the first time and so a second time wouldn't be treated any differently. At least, that's my interpretation of that part of your post.

That's a fair interpretation I think. But in this case of the pregnancy I think the adults in question are probably expected to take up this particular judgement socially as opposed to being explicitly told by an authority. It doesn't seem to me that similar expectations should fall upon the child.

"Truly tolerable" would be more akin to the bouncy ball scenario.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You didn't answer my question of - do you believe that if you don't have to marry someone you impregnate, that it means that premarital sex is okay?

I've asked it several times now. If yes, please show your work. If no, fine. It's not rocket science, if you can make a valid argument, make it, if not, fine.
---

I'm going to page some philosophical minds to get some more input. @Caveat @Voodoo_Child906:

Is it possible to fill in this syllogism to make it valid:

1. If you have premarital sex and impregnate someone, it is not mandatory to marry them.
2. ?
C. Premarital sex is okay.

I didn't like the wording of P1 so I rephrased it and the definition of "okay" is ambiguous but here is my stab at it. Also, this isn't a standard Syllogism as there is no major and minor premise.

P1 - It is not mandatory to marry a person you impregnate during premarital sex
P2 - Both parties agree with P1
P3 - Both parties were of sound mind, understood the risks, consented and there were no other lawful impediments

C - Premarital sex is ok

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Yes, it does. If people think human life is so valuable why don't they go and donate a kidney to people in need?
Because they weight the benefits.

Not a valid comparison

Not going out of your way to save someone =/= going out of your way to kill someone

I think most people would donate the kidney if they were approached and asked to. I think it's more a lack of motivation to seek out someone who matches and needs a kidney. That's totally speculative, of course.

 

[snakedafunky]

Not a valid comparison

Not going out of your way to save someone =/= going out of your way to kill someone

Yes, but the result is the same. A non exisitng life. If that would be someone's main concern they should actively try and save a life.

Similar to abortion it is also not the same as killing a fully developed child or person.
It is not a valid comparison comparing an abortion to killing a baby. But a lot of people do it.
You kill a bunch of cells or a fetus.

 

[panamaican]

That's a fair interpretation I think. But in this case of the pregnancy I think the adults in question are probably expected to take up this particular judgement socially as opposed to being explicitly told by an authority. It doesn't seem to me that similar expectations should fall upon the child.

"Truly tolerable" would be more akin to the bouncy ball scenario.

I don't want to get too mired in the weeds here but isn't the particular social judgment exactly what we're trying to prove? Assuming negative social judgment contradicts the initial proposition that statement 1 is ok, tolerable, permissible, etc. If it's "ok" then there would be no intervening judgment socially, correct? To assume that society would judge the activity (and negatively at that) means that the initial statement that the activity is "ok" isn't true to begin with, right? At least that it my interpretation from your statement that the milk analogy presupposes that spilling milk is a bad thing.

If the scenario is more like the bouncy ball...in which case, I guess I'm not clear what your conclusion is under those assumptions.

In any regard, thanks for taking the time.

 

[panamaican]

Alright so I got lazy and only read a part of your links. Here are a few points I'll throw out there that don't necessarily refute your point but just something to think about.

For one, there are parts of your link that do mention that there are gender differences in risk aversion with a biological basis in the brain. Now, that doesn't mean its innate because our brains are formed party in response to our environments but it seems like the jury is still out on whether these differences are entirely social, biological, or a mix of both(what I imagine they likely are)

Second, even if its a result of social conditioning I don't necessarily accept that this is on its own enough of a justification against legislating while taking this into account. A social reality is still a reality and legislating in response to them makes some sense. Of course I can also understand not wanting to legislate in response to them and instead focusing on changing the social reality or at the very least being wary of taking these social factors into account when legislating family law or reproductive rights. It also depends on how deeply ingrained these socially conditioned differences are. Some such socially conditioned differences might be very recent and ephemeral ones while others might be heavily ingrained within our society such that they might as well become accepted as a constant variable.

this is secondary to my main point so I'm not going to spend too much time on it. Here's my opinion summarized: Until we're sure that it's nature and not nurture (and the extent to which it is either), we should proceed from as even a platform as possible.

You're talking about child support in the context of a divorce, in which case I would agree. The father in that case decided to make a commitment to the family unit which includes the child and that commitment should continue after the marriage dissolves. The only exception would be in the case where he finds he has been raising the child of another man. In such a case I think its only fair that he should be let off the hook since he has been deceived. I generally think its better to put the needs of the child over that of the father but in that kind of case I personally feel a line has to be drawn, its a bit of an injustice against the man at that point.

I was, however, talking about child support in the context of an unwanted pregnancy resulting from casual sex. The mother in that case has no reason to expect the kind of commitment a wife would from her husband. In those cases I think only the basic needs of the child should be extracted from the father and ideally there should be some oversight ensuring the funds are spent on the child though such a mechanism might be more trouble than its worth.

In the context of child support of an unwanted pregnancy resulting from casual sex, I still think the basic needs position is too narrow. Again, from the perspective of the child, why should the child get a lesser contribution from the father, just because the 2 parents aren't married? Whether the issue is a divorce or parents never married or unwanted pregnancies, the question is if the father should only be contributing the "minimum" to the raising of the child. I can't really support that.

Unless there's some mechanism in place early in the pregnancy to hash that out (and maybe you're assuming that and I'm not) then the child should be the recipient of support equivalent to what that child in a married household would expect. Either the fathers are all in or they're all out.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Yes, but the result is the same. A non exisitng life. If that would be someone's main concern they should actively try and save a life.

Similar to abortion it is also not the same as killing a fully developed child or person.
It is not a valid comparison comparing an abortion to killing a baby. But a lot of people do it.
You kill a bunch of cells or a fetus.

Once again, looking only at the final result is not how most decisions of morality are made. That's called being pragmatic, not idealistic. I tend to be more idealistic.

As I've also previously stated, this entire argument hinges on the acceptance of the idea that human life begins at conception. If you do, abortion is the same as murder. If you don't, it's not. The debate of whether or not a fetus is a person is a horse that's been beaten way past death. I'm not interested in doing that.

 

[cooks1]

God has nothing to do with this. And....Nope. They're scum bags, but it's their choice to be scumbags. Why shouldn't a man have the right to sign off on whether or not the baby should be aborted? If it was a collaborated decision to fuck each other, it should be a collaborated decision to deal with the consequences.

It's not a collaborative effort to to carry the child for 9 fucking months though is it?

I hope I win the lottery someday. Not just a couple million, like billions. I am going to throw money into developing technology that will enable us to transfer a fetus to a mans asshole, where it can gestate for 9 months. Then the man can deliver. And people like Rip and yourself can either volunteer your services as a surrogate or shut your fucking mouths once and for all.

 

[Your Salad]

The whole "if you are responsible enough to have sex you are responsible enough to raise a child" is such a bullshit argument I can't take anyone seriously that spews that crap out.
Any 2 14 year olds can have sex. Does that mean they are ready to raise a child? If 2 college age strangers get drunk and hook up is the woman really a scumbag because she doesn't want to derail her entire future by having a child?
Screw you TS.

Edit: TS your av is very appropriate regarding your feelings about women.

 

[longafan]

I never really understand where people like the TS are coming from, mentality-wise. Do these type people believe that just because someone becomes pregnant, they are morally obliged to carry the fetus to term? and LMAO Canned Tuna, well put, will vote for Anal fetal implantation when you get the tech ready, though maybe it could be implanted in their belly button cuz the pregnant men will have to sit down etc.

 

[Buck Swope]

Die in a fire

WTF?