About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 12:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, what if the woman lies to the man, telling him she is taking contraceptives? Or if she just forgets to take the pills - should the man be responsible for her negligence?

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 4:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Phil,

I fully understand your concern, but there are two different issues here, I think.

Regi, what if the woman lies to the man, telling him she is taking contraceptives? Or if she just forgets to take the pills - should the man be responsible for her negligence?
 
First, you are never responsible for what someone else chooses or does, you are only responsible for what you do. However, in the case of pregnancy, the man has always made a choice and done something.

The reason I say there are two issues here is because there is first the responsibility we all have for our own choices and actions; ignorance never let's us off the hook for that.

The second issue is practical and legal: to what extent and in what situations is it the government's business to force people to fulfill the obligations for which their own actions make them responsible.

If I make a woman pregnant it is because I performed an act by my own choice that no one could force me to perform. I know there is always a possibility I am being deceived, of not knowing everything. If I do not want a woman to be pregnant as a result of my act there are a number of ways I can be certain that does not happen. I can have a vasectomy, for example, or I can refrain from the act except in those cases where I am willing to accept the responsibility if pregnancy occurs. That's my view of the first issue.

As for the second issue, I personally think the less government is involved the better. The fact that the man is responsible for his acts and choices does not relieve the woman of responsibility for her own choices and actions. The possibility of deception works both ways. Maybe the man swore he had a vasectomy. The only difference is, when there is a pregnancy, the man can act as though nothing ever happened, there is no choice forced on him. For the woman, however, there is a choice she must make that cannot be avoided.

It makes no difference if he fooled her, or she fooled him, or they were both fools and just acted rashly, when a woman becomes pregnant, they are both responsible for that consequence of their own choices and actions. The man can walk away from his responsibility in the matter, but cannot do so morally. The woman cannot walk away, because she carries hers with her.

Regi



Post 22

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 9:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a dark and eerie scenario, that may or may not be possible in reality:

A male and female have sex; the male wears a condom (without spermicide), removes it and then falls asleep.

During the night, while he sleeps, could the female, desiring to get pregnant by this male, take the condom and have herself artificially inseminated with what's inside?

If such a thing ever happened, is the male now obligated to that female and her child?  Could that she took such action, ever be proved?


Post 23

Saturday, July 3, 2004 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a dark and eerie scenario, that may or may not be possible in reality:

A male and female have sex; the male wears a condom (without spermicide), removes it and then falls asleep.

During the night, while he sleeps, could the female, desiring to get pregnant by this male, take the condom and have herself artificially inseminated with what's inside?

If such a thing ever happened, is the male now obligated to that female and her child?  Could that she took such action, ever be proved?


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you impregnate a woman, you have forced the choice on her decide to carry the child to term or not.
Your statement is loaded with a hidden premise that impregnation is somehow a commission a man does "to" a woman without her participation.

Except in the event of rape, men do not unilaterally impregnate women.  Men *assist* women in the task of becoming pregnant.  It takes two to tango.  However, laws currently allow women unilaterally to *choose* to bring to term or abort a fetus, and keep or put up for adoption a baby.  Men have *no legal say* in the matter.  So if gender equality of choice is to be maintained, then it follows that men ought to be able to *choose* whether or not to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

As it stands now, the state can charge a man as a "deadbeat dad" and lock him up for refusing to pay support for a child he never wanted.  Not so with women, who have the aforementioned choices available to them by law.


Post 25

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
During the night, while he sleeps, could the female, desiring to get pregnant by this male, take the condom and have herself artificially inseminated with what's inside?
Visit http://www.beingaman.com and order the first book.  The author documents just such a case.  The man had to pay child support.  Unbelievable.


Post 26

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
...for the sake of the thin-skinned children.

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 7/11, 7:55pm)


Post 27

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 5:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have the annoying habit of confusing America's irrational laws with moral principles. They are almost always in total conflict.
If your argument is purely on how you morally judge people, and you are not advocating use of government to enforce that particular judgment, then ... peace.


Post 28

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While it's nice to know that most heterosexual Objectivists sympathize with the aspirations of homosexuals, it should not be assumed that all homosexuals support the notion of "gay marriage" and indeed many find the notion absurd. See, for instance, this thread:

"No law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man."
Orson Scott Card
Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization

and especially:

The Separation of Marriage and State



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Sunday, October 9, 2016 - 10:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This is an old thread and there really isn't much in today's news that calls out for adding another post.  But there is one point that isn't made often enough. 

 

When government makes laws that require a license, or a certificate in order to engage in some act (marriage, opening a business, being a beautician or manicurist or therapist, etc.) - it is really a prohibition.  It is valid for a government to prohibit any act that violates the individual rights of another.  But with licenses, what is prohibited is NOT an act that violates another's individual rights, and therefore it is a direct decrease of liberty.

 

A license or occupational certification is something where regulators create specific requirments (pay a fee, get a blood test, be a certain age, pass an examine, etc.) and everyone who doesn't comply with whatever the regulations call for is prohibited from taking those actions.  It takes an area of actions - actions that have nothing to do with theft, fraud or initiation of force - and makes them illegal unless the person gets the state's permission (the license).  In effect, converting a right into a limited permission and reinforcing the foul idea that the state has all the rights while people need permissions.

 

If one woman wants to pay another woman to braid her hair, that other woman is prohibited from doing the hair-braiding unless she has taken courses, passed tests, and acquired a license from the state.  Once, not that long ago, there were states in the South that would not permit the marriage of an inter-racial couple.  Only a government required licenses make it possible for the government to destroy liberty in that fashion.  (The couple could just co-habitate, but that was also illegal at the time).

 

There is a valid concept behind a non-government issued license or certification.  It can be evidence of a competence provided by a trusted authority.  But that's a different animal, and we won't see many of those while government steps in a ruins the market for valid licenses or certifications.

 

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 10/10, 1:32pm)



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.