Philosophy (Part 2)

[Jon Miller]

well

the father of my sisters two children hasn't worked a day in his life

so she gets no money from him (I think he is out of prison now though)

Jon Miller
as for how he lives?

he bums of people, even my sister (who usually bums off others)

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe she'd have tossed him on his ass if she knew that he'd rather she had an abortion than have to pay for half.

[Jon Miller]

he hasn't (and will never I predict) pay for anything

he doesn't work

she tried to live with him (a couple times) but he was such a sap to her resources (which are slim with no education and kids) that she kicked him out

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

m point is that not all women use the men like a sperm bank + credit line

I am pretty sure she did not plan on getting pregnant (either time)

Jon Miller

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's why I said a lot of philosophy is logically crap. Any philosophy based on faulty logic isn't relevant IMO.

It's not that logic is faulty. It's that philosophy is not based exclusively on logic.

For something to be good and bad simultaneously isn't a well-defined assertion. It is neither good, nor bad. That's the problem with English; it lets you get away with bad logic too easily.

It's not the "problem" with English. In Russian this idea can be expressed too.

And what's your problem with one thing being good and bad simultaneously? It may be good in one sense, but bad in another sense.

But it's true that the validity of contradiction could be a premise behind a philosophical system. It's just that such a system wouldn't be particularly useful.

This depends on what is meant by 'contradiction'. For example, the notion of contradiction is central to Gegel's system, and appears in the second law of dialectics.

Actually, neither are sciences.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Well, OK, it depends on the definition, I can agree with you on this point.

[KrazyHorse]

Science is the scientific method. The scientific method is science.

[The Vagabond]

Unborn child is a part of mother's body. Her right to do whatever she wants with her body is a God-given, natural, biological right. It obviously takes precedence of whatever rights or duties the father may have, because the latter are just society-imposed. Therefore fathers should have no decisive say in the matter of abortion, irrespective of any possible financial consequences or other societal effects.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
So what? He wouldn't have any right to see his children. And if the mother wants to have the child of a man that doesn't love his own children enough to support them and in addition bear sole responsibility for their maintenance then she deserves what she gets.

How does she deserve this? Better question, how does the child deserve this if the mother cant support or society doesn't support?

Originally posted by Frogger
The same situation is possible in reverse, you know. Too bad. The people involved agreed to it either explicitly or implicitly.

That the women would claim to want an abortion to get out of paying her half of support? Is this a real possibility?

[KrazyHorse]

Nobody said that the father had any right to force the mother into the stirrups.

Just like nobody can force the woman in my yet-to-be-discounted analogy to get cosmetic surgery.

[KrazyHorse]

That the women would claim to want an abortion to get out of paying her half of support? Is this a real possibility?

Why not?

Come on, now; you're setting up all women as angels. I'm setting up a system in which both sexes are treated as equally as possible given the differences inherent in the roles.

How does she deserve this? Better question, how does the child deserve this if the mother cant support or society doesn't support?

She deserves it because she would choose to bear sole responsibility for the child. You're telling me that women shouldn't have to make the same sort of hard choices that men are forced to nowadays when the situation is reversed.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Frogger
Science is the scientific method. The scientific method is science.

This resembles me one of Jean Chretien's quotes in another thread.

[DuncanK]

frogger,

Surely there are some idiots who will get pregnant for financial gain, but the majority of women see that it is not a good way to get rich. You only get a portion of your costs back and it's a tremendous amount of work. Worse, most men really don't like to get to involved with women who have kids. I don't think you are being totally fair to women.

[KrazyHorse]

No, because most people don't think a proof isn't a proof, while on this very thread some people are claiming that disciplines don't have to use the scientific method in order to be science.

*Stares intently at Vagabond

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK
frogger,

Surely there are some idiots who will get pregnant for financial gain, but the majority of women see that it is not a good way to get rich. You only get a portion of your costs back and it's a tremendous amount of work. Worse, most men really don't like to get to involved with women who have kids. I don't think you are being totally fair to women.

So what? You're claiming that men will ask the woman to get an abortion because they want to get out of paying the costs, but that women won't?

Come on. You assume the best of the fairer sex. I think they're both equally slimy.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
She deserves it because she would choose to bear sole responsibility for the child. You're telling me that women shouldn't have to make the same sort of hard choices that men are forced to nowadays when the situation is reversed.

She doesn't choose to bear sole responsibility. Women have never made that choice. Before there were child support laws men made those choices. Women never agreed to it.