Philosophy (Part 2)

[KrazyHorse]

You don't believe in welfare?

See the last part of my previous post.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main point FOR Philosophy (and yes, it has turned into a 'philosophy is useless' thread, not matter what your protestations, Asher) is that every social construct has been created and defined through philosophy. Every political system and ethical belief are philosophy through and through.

It depends. If you are talking about "ought to," "should," that kind of thing, it is philosophy. If you are talking about "is," "how," and "what," it is not.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DuncanK
With out the support of the father most women can not afford to support the child. If society doens't give support than she has no choice but to have the abortion. So if the father refuses to pay support and doesn't have to it's the same as forcing her to have an abortion.

Duncan, she can put her child up for adoption, or she can endure whatever hardship there is to rear it.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

With out the support of the father most women can not afford to support the child. If society doens't give support than she has no choice but to have the abortion. So if the father refuses to pay support and doesn't have to it's the same as forcing her to have an abortion.

Now this my friend is philosophy at its finest. Bull****. You know how many single mothers are out there who aren't getting child support? A whole bunch.

Second of all, your argument sounds like the people who think all public speech should be subsidised to ensure freedom of speech. You know what? I agree with you. I also think that every child should be payed for by the State (say, up to a limit of 3 per parent). But I'm a socialist. And that's neither here nor there when it comes to this system in which everything has a price, and you pay for your own decisions.

So it comes down to you believe that a women should be able to have a child and not pay full support. That's funny, it seems to me that you have been arguing that if a women chooses not to have an abortion that she should have to pay full support.

So why is society more responsible for someones child than the father?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Duncan, she can put her child up for adoption, or she can endure whatever hardship there is to rear it.

Ok, these aren't very good choices either.

[KrazyHorse]

Because the father is choosing not to have a child.

Society as a whole choses to have children, and society as a whole should pay for it. Just like health care, education, and the basic staples of life that society should pay for every last one of its members.

[KrazyHorse]

Ok, these aren't very good choices either.

There are no good choices. You just want to place all the choice with the mother, give the father none and then place half the burden on him.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
Because the father is choosing not to have a child.

Society as a whole choses to have children, and society as a whole should pay for it. Just like health care, education, and the basic staples of life that society should pay for every last one of its members.

No No No. The father chose to have sex. Who knows if he used protection or not. Probably he didn't. How about the women in society that choose to have abortions because they don't want to support a child. How about the men who use protection. They should have to pay for other people to have children? That's crap. I believe that society should support children but not if the parents can do it.

[KrazyHorse]

The father chose to have sex. He didn't chose to have a child. And if he did wear protection then he most certainly was not demonstrating intent to have a child. If he didn't then the question becomes much murkier in my mind.

If you hadn't noticed, about 15 pages ago I made sure to use the phrase "and took reasonable precatuions against".

[KrazyHorse]

Do you understand the legal meaning of the word "intent", Duncan? He intended to have sex. He did not necessarily intend to have a child.

[KrazyHorse]

No No No. The father chose to have sex. Who knows if he used protection or not. Probably he didn't. How about the women in society that choose to have abortions because they don't want to support a child. How about the men who use protection. They should have to pay for other people to have children? That's crap. I believe that society should support children but not if the parents can do it.

What a ****e post. Your argument has been degrading for the last 3 pages (it was holding up pretty well until then).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
The father chose to have sex. He didn't chose to have a child. And if he did wear protection then he most certainly was not demonstrating intent to have a child. If he didn't then the question becomes much murkier in my mind.

If you hadn't noticed, about 15 pages ago I made sure to use the phrase "and took reasonable precatuions against".

Since the father chose to have sex, he took a risk and got a thrill. And therefore he is more responsible for the child than society who took no risk and did not get a thrill. And how is society to know if he used reasonable precautions?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
Do you understand the legal meaning of the word "intent", Duncan? He intended to have sex. He did not necessarily intend to have a child.

He took a risk. If I drive drunk I take a risk of getting in an accident. I may not have intended to get into an accident, but I'm still responsible.

[KrazyHorse]

And since the woman chose to have sex she took the same risk. Now that they're in this situation through an equal action on both their parts, let's only defend the woman's right to make a choice because lord knows the man must have taken advantage of her in order to get her in the sack. It's not like women actually want sex for itself...

[KrazyHorse]

He took a risk. If I drive drunk I take a risk of getting in an accident. I may not have intended to get into an accident, but I'm still responsible.

Driving drunk is analogous to going in without a condom. Driving sober is analogous to going in with one.

On that note, it's 5:00 and you're getting more boring by the minute...