The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

The initial decision is hers solely, because of the nature of reality in regards to the differences between the genders. She has no ability to opt out or walk away in the same way the man can. That's a metaphysical difference, not a man made one. After the child is born, BOTH parents hav a responsibility to the child. (If they decide adoption is the most responsible option, then that's okay obviously.)

But my typing IS sloppy. Sorry...

Post 61

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 1:15pm

Lee: Thanks for answering. I think I have only one or maybe two more questions, depending on your answer to this one:

Suppose the woman contracts with the man for sperm delivery services as in the previous scenario, except that instead of doing it the old fashioned way, he does it the test-tube way. To be clear he is the one actually performing the service, end to end, functioning simultaneously as the sperm donor, the lab, and the doctor.

Have his obligations changed relative to the previous scenario?

Post 62

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 1:31pm

What does the woman's contract say? Is she married? Planing to raise the child alone? Make up some more details, because some of my answer will depend on the specifics of the deal - but it's still not like people who date, have sex and then get pregnant.

Post 63

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 1:48pm

The contract could include anything that a normal sperm delivery service would have in its contract with the woman if they were doing it instead of the man. I don't see why you ask that question, seems pretty obvious from the context that that's what I meant.

Post 64

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:01pm

That still doesn't tell me what I need to know. For instance, does the contract cover issues of support? What are the terms?

For example - if a man sees an ad in the paper, has an interview, is given a contact that says he has no parental responsabilty (a contract that legal people have said is valid), is told that the parents of any children resulting doesn't want him to be part of the child's life, and so on - well, obviously he doesn't have parental responsibility.

If a man meets a woman, flirts with her, brings her out on dates, buys her meals, creates a sexual relaitonship with, has sex with her, has more sex with her - bascially the scenario I laid out (no pun intended)- then he gets her pregnant (for Luther - when I say gets her pregnant, I mean he puts his penis into her, ejaculates, the sperm and egg meet) - so, now she's pregnant.

These are two different scenarios entirely. One is planned, volitional and involves paperwork. The other is unplanned, not something either party went into intentional, and was based on a loose, informal (informal in the sense of a lack of paperwork) relationship..

Now, switching topics - further expansion I what I was saying earlier about the difference between the metaphysical and the man made.

Men and women are different in this regard, and men have the advantage. A man gets a woman pregnant, at which point his role in the creation of new life is done. In a physical sense, the woman doesn't need him at all anymore. (My wife Lauren gave birth to our two youngest kids, at home and unassisted - so I know this is true.)

When a woman becomes pregnant, the man CAN opt out of making any decision. It's literally possible for him in a way it is simply not possible for a woman.

He isn't pregnant, she is. He won't have to have an abortion or give birth - she will. She can't opt out - a baby is coming out of her, or she needs to go through a not fun invasive procedure. He can talk to her, whatever - it's her call since the fetus is gestating in her womb. If we had the technology to stick the womb in the dude, and both parties agreed - then it's different issue. But here on Earth in 2005 - wombs are the exclusive domain of the ladies.

So, if it's not the woman's decision to keep a pregnancy or abort it - whose is it? The man's? That would give him literal control over her body. She didn't get pregnant on her own. There was that whole penis / sperm thing. I'm not suggesting that the man be soley responsible - I'm saying he morally is partially responsible.

Post 65

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:03pm

Lee, I think I still own it to answer following of your questions and then I am done.

"...do you see any of her actions as inconsistent with her values of wanting to be a good parent? Or inconsistent with the child's welfare?"

Absolutely. She is irrational and immoral in forcing (or as you say "expecting") others to let her be parasite on them. Without a committed father and financial security, how it is possible that she can be a good parent for any children that she wants to have???

"Or is [the girl] the only person who matters Frisco in this case?"

Is there anybody else?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/04, 3:18pm)

Post 66

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:20pm

Hong, you said...

"She is irrational and immoral in forcing (or as you say "expecting") others to let her be parasite on them. Without a committed father and financial security, how it is possible that she can be a good parent for any children that she wants to have??? "

This is the fallacy of begging the question. You are presuming that the father won't be committed and financially responsible - but that's the entire question here. You're including the question in the answer, you see?

The question is - should the father be committed and financially responsible? Should be change his values because of the change in circumstances, or keep on living as though there wasn't a child of his in the world?

Also, obviously - a woman can be a good mother even with a bad or non-existant father - so that doesn't hold either.

Post 67

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:24pm

Lee: Why have you taken my simple scenarios and blown them up into a big complicated mess? I didn't mention ads, interviews, flirting, meals, or any of that, and none of that is relevant to my questions.

You're seeming quite dodgy. You want to get back to my questions fine, otherwise I'm taking Marcus' advice.

Post 68

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:54pm

Shayne - seriously, I"m trying to understand what you are getting at. One is a commercial transaction with mutually agreed upon terms, once is accidental preanancy with people dating. I don't see the two as related. Maybe I'm dense but I'm trying.

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/04, 3:54pm)

Post 69

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:08pm

Lee,
I assume that the girl's moral stature is independent on the action of another person. While you automatically assume that there should be a "father", regardless of the will and opinion of the man. You demand that a person should change his own values for the sake of others. We have absolutely no common ground on this issue. I am now also taking Marcus' advice.

Post 70

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 8:21am

Well, yeah - I think it's better if there's a father, or more precisely I think it's much worse for a child if the father abdicates responsibility. And statistics bear this out...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/w-misc/wallace070402.htm

http://www.nebraskachildren.org/about_us/programs/fatherhood/statistics.html

http://ftf.videoideas.com/inflow/templates/?a=38&z=0

http://www.fatherlove.com/articles/riskfactors.html

try those for starters.

A smart person on another Objectivist board answered my question by point to the virtue of justice, even if the baby was unplanned because it's their baby.

The responses here have been, to coin a phrase - bizarre. There's also a very nast little cliquishness here. Because Marcus can't rationally argue his point, he stamps off and then a few of the rest of you purse your lips and stamp off behind him. I don't know if you think that means you made your point, because what I see is a bunch of petulant people who don't really understand the ideas, but twist catch phrases to suit their own personal world view. It's pretty gross.

Post 71

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:15am

Lee: Speaking of justice, your comments aren't just. There's indeed some cliquishness here but I'm certainly not a member. I tried engaging you for some time after Marcus left, only to have you fail to read my simple questions. I happen to agree with Marcus that your method here appears to be some kind of mish-mash of Objectivism and Christianity.

One is a commercial transaction with mutually agreed upon terms, once is accidental preanancy with people dating. I don't see the two as related. Maybe I'm dense but I'm trying.

I already gave you an example that related them. The couple are engaging in a commercial transaction, while they are dating. You ignored the commercial part.

I did want to get to the bottom of your premises (what you say explicitly is just a rationalization), and I suspect what's there is some kind of pleasure=sin theme, but since you can't even give me straight answers on straightforward scenarios that's going to be impossible.

PS: The forum has this nice feature called "Preview with Spell Check."

(Edited by Shayne Wissler on 3/05, 9:16am)

Post 72

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:21am

Interesting discussion going on here. I finally got a chance to read it. As probably the only single mom on the board I will offer my own opinion. I was married for 10 years and have two kids. The situation you described involves a confirmed bachelor who accidently gets his girlfriend pregnant and the girlfriend wants to keep the baby and he wants to wash his hands of the whole ordeal. You did not say whether he wants to leave her if she has the child or if he is planning to bolt. The three options are her choice.

1) Have the baby
2) Abort
3) Put the kid up for adoption

The confusion comes in under the first choice. What, if any, responsibility does the father have if she decides to have the baby against his wishes to be an active involved parent? First off she should realize that she will most likely be raising the child on her own and although there is such a thing as child support, it is not a realistic option to expect it. I know because I've had trouble collecting child support from my ex, who is affectionately referred to as "sperm donor." The woman has a very important choice to make and must think rationally about the future of both herself and the child.

Since having children I am a bit more pro-life than I once was. I am also very much a realist. I would suggest that unless she is willing and able to raise the child completely on her own that she should hold off having children. He, on the other hand, should give her the money for the full cost of the abortion and seriously consider having a contract drawn up in which he waives his parental rights and she waves the rights to come after him for support.

Post 73

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:22am

Charming, aren�t they Lee? You should have seen them expounding upon the importance of hitting children and how children being not the same as adults, learn best by experiencing pain.

There is a bright side. They appear dead-set against ever having children�the whole world thanks them for that.

Jon

Post 74

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:37am

This is an issue of interest to me. If I accidentally got a woman pregnant that I did not want to spend the rest of my life with, and she insisted on having the baby, I would feel obligated financially support the child in some way, but I would not be a part of its life. I think the best benefit of a two parent upbringing is when the parents live together and work as a team to raise the child.

As an unmarried man, I am terrified at the above prospect. A significant number of women out there who are 'pro-choice' politically would personally never have an abortion, even if they had an unplanned pregnancy. Even a woman who says she would have an abortion might change her mind once she's actually pregnant and realizes that there is a gestating human life form inside of her. It's always an awkward thing for me to bring up with a woman....if you like everything else about a woman, but she says that if an accidental pregnancy were to happen that she would have the baby, should you break up with her if in fact you wanted no part in making a baby at that point in your life?

(Edited by Pete on 3/05, 9:38am)

(Edited by Pete on 3/05, 9:49am)

Post 75

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:48am

You should have seen them expounding upon the importance of hitting children and how children being not the same as adults, learn best by experiencing pain.

That might be the most dishonest thing I've read from someone in this forum who dared to show his face. If I'm wrong, then post a link to where anyone argued that children learn best by experiencing pain. Because I followed that thread and none of the posters were saying anything close to that.

Post 76

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:50am

Shayne, I didn't name names in the clique. I just don't picture Howard Roark saying 'I'm going to do what Cameron said and not talk to you anymore!' - he'd just do it. Nobody has to engage in discussion, but by throwing out names to ally yourself with - I dunno, just doesn't seem like the act of a rational, independent person. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like another version of what I don't like about ARI.

I didn't understand what you were saying about dating / commercial transaction. I told you I wasn't understanding, and I said I was trying to. I still don't really understand. Please try to phrase it again.

As for me being some mix of Christian and O'ist or my having 'pleasure = sin' thing, you're just 100% wrong. But Marcus said it, so it must be true. I don't know why he said it, and he didn't offer any proof...but he said it, but let's go with that. Even a perusal of my other posts wouldn't make that make sense - I think I'm the only person who responded with personal experience from non-monogomous relationship, and it wasn't because I was holed up in a cave in Utah.

My premise is really simple - responsibility for the consequences of one's action, including unintended consequences, plus the metaphysical differences between the genders, plus the rational basis for changing one's value system based on changes in reality.

There are plenty of example of this last one other than what I gave, such as a person whose loved one becomes suddenly ill - their values SHOULD change at that point. Most of the arguements I've seen here really sound nothing like a rational values system, but one where someone's feeling trump reality and nobody is allowed to question that.

One last point - there seems to be a lot of people on SOLO who ignore what people say, but jump right to what they REALLY mean. Well, stop it - you're wrong most of the time, and it's a really awful way to argue, based not on facts but on total, complete subjectivism masquerading as superior knowledge.

Post 77

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:52am

Pete,

What if you knew that by your non-involvement, the child's life would be effected negatively?

Post 78

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 9:56am

Shayne, I have neither the patience nor interest nor stomach to go back and find the posts for you. If you read all of it, including the news story that started it, (there were two threads) then I cannot imagine how you missed the detailed arguments that posters wrote to make the case that children learn about dangers of the street, of the oven, etc. by feeling pain issue from the parent. In fact, I have understated them�they didn�t say children learn these dangers BEST, but ONLY through feeling pain from the hand of the parent.

Jon

Post 79

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 10:39am