Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ViperDragon, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,191
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    But the tax incentive doesn't discourage having babies, it encourages proper planing because of the "parent test" and offers incentives after.
     
  2. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +4,163
    For the sake of argument, that idea needs to be justified.
    Actually that's iron ore. We take the iron and make steel out of it. But again, how do you decide whether this is natural? There are other animals out there that use tools, pass on systems of learned behavior (which could arguably be called culture), exploit other organisms, and have sex for reasons other than reproduction. The ability to learn these thing, one could argue, is a natural ability, and not to use it would be against our very nature.
    Demonstrate to me how reproduction was ever a purpose, rather than a function. Unless you're Wiccan or something, nature itself doesn't have any intentions. It's just the process of how things work. Anyway, if we assume that our entire society isn't "natural" then there shouldn't be any argument about whether "unnaturally" avoiding reproduction is okay.
     
  3. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +3
    Well, of course it discourages having babies. It's a carrot thrown out there in order to get people to sterilize themselves. It tells those willing to make that sacrifice that they will be rewarded, and those unwilling, will get the shaft.
     
  4. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +4,163
    ...and those that take and pass the suggested parenthood test.

    And I'm all for giving people an extra incentive not to breed without thinking it through first.
     
  5. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +3
    I think in this argument, function and purpose are closer than you would think. A Function is described as an assigned duty or task. A Purpose is described as a goal to be strived for. Really they aren't that different. At some point or another most people feel the desire to reproduce, which is your function as a part of any living species. However, many animal species have failsafes that are used to control reproduction. We're one of the few mammals on the planet that don't seem to have a natural sense of population control, even though we should. Yes, the menstrual cycle is there, but it's hardly fool proof. We need a little extra help, which is where our brains come in, helping us to limit our control with devices used to inhibit pregnancy.

    I would say that reproducing is a purpose in life, but not the purpose. We're also here to die and be food for the worms, and such and such, which is just as noble a function, if you ask me.
     
  6. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +3
    That's a good point. The responsible, intelligent folks are still getting the short end of the stick.
     
  7. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,191
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    Wait, how? The responsible intelligent people are most likely to take the incentive. Free birth control, tax breaks before and after they become parents. I would do it in a heart beat.
     
  8. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +4,163
    Urinating is also a function, but to say that it's our purpose seems absurd, so I think that function and purpose are clearly different. However, for the sake of semantics, let's pretend that I used the word "mechanism" rather than "function". That's effectively what I meant by it.
    How are they getting the short end of the stick if they get tax breaks for taking a test before having children?
     
  9. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +3
    I don't know, after a few pints in the pub, I often feel like urinating is my grand purpose ;) 


    I think I misread you. I assumed you were talking about people who took the test without taking the tax incentive for getting sterilized. My mistake.
     
  10. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    We as a human race have become less dependent on nature and for the most part able to survive in harsher climates, with little or no problems. A monkey could not live in Northern Canada, just in the same way that a Polar Bear cannot live in south Florida, but humans can does either, very easily. Sure sometimes we over step our balance on nature and we get hit with disasters that we are not prepared for, but for the most part, we depend on a man made word, vs the world the nature intended.

    Doh!!! Iron ore eh, Sounds right. :banghead: 

    My oversite aside, the ability to use a stick to pick out ants from a log and the ability to take the elements of the earth, form and use it to build, or create really anything of our imagination aren't not exactly the same. And sure you can teach a ape to do sign languge, but can you teach it to drive a car, bake a cake, or build a house. Sorry monkeys, but you will allways be monkeys no matter how they make you look like a skateboarder/ football player/ etc, etc.

    And even though some animals have sex for pleasure, it is no where near that same obsession that our society has for it. I think for the most part, sex is an enjoyable act for most things, but animals are never paying for it.


    Purpose and function are synonyms (thank-you WORD thesaurus)

    We as a society strive to reproduce, and the action of reproduction is the function of living.

    I agree that avoiding re-production is ok, but at the risk of pissing others off, for my point of view, popular society favors a life without children. Example- making it difficult for a parent to stay at home full time with a child. Shows like Sex in the City glamorizing a show about successful women with out a care in the world, void of the daily trials of raising a child. Television is a constant reminder to people with children how great it would be with out them. Sure there are some shows that include the daily life of the average family (re Rosanne) but these shows are not terribly popular. Friends was another example, even after a baby was introduced there were times when I would wonder, ‘where is the kid in this situation?’
    I think a lot of kids would really benefit from being raised by a parent, but given the stresses of life, mortgage, bills etc, etc, it is too hard to manage on a one income family.
    Please note, not saying it has to be the mother!!!!
     
  11. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,191
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    I agree with you, but I do think it is possible to have a family on one income. It is our consumer driven society that makes it hard. We need the fancy houses, the SUVs, The ipods and xbox 360's. That and the price of convenience. My brother-in-law lives in a rural community in North Dakota. His house, which is not bad, costed him $16,000. I could sell our house in St. Paul, and get about $40,000 in profit. We could buy that house, and have money left over. One income is all we would need. But is it worth the price? That is something my wife and I have been thinking over.
     
  12. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    Yeah, I work as a Mortgage broker/ loans officer and see first hand the impact of our big/better society has on the people. House prices here have soared, shortage of skilled labor and increase of population has really put a strain on the house market. I just bought a new home, smaller for $200,000 Canadian. I have had it for 5 months I could list it for 270,000 (aprox). I wouldn't pay that much for my home. I suppose I could live in North Dakota, but are there any jobs there?

    To keep a float I work two jobs and my wife works part-time, the downside is we rarely get to see each other, but the up side, we don't have to pay for daycare, as one of us is always there. Funny how items go up in price, but pay has not jumped as much, or maybe there are just too many new things to buy like you mentioned.
     
  13. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +4,163
    You still haven't defined what "nature" is. You're just asking us to assume that the things humans do are unnatural while the things other animals do are. Also, again, outside of any spiritual belief, nature is not sentient. There isn't anything that nature "intended". Nature is simply the laws of the physical universe and the process of how things work, and we haven't and to my knowledge can't break those.
    Actually, they're exactly the same thing, just taken to a different level. Human intelligence and ingenuity are natural, as is the pasing and accumulation of knowledge. We have very large and complex language and reasoning centers in our brain for those very purposes. To not use them would be quite against our nature, and culture, cities, and technology are the natural result.
    Learn more about dolphins and bonobos. Sexual play is a favorite activity for dolphins. If it's somehow not near our obsession with it, it's because they don't have a mass media glamorizing it. They do, however, have a complex verbal language and a learned culture that is passed on between generations. Bonobos engage in sex as a form of economic transaction. If a female bonobo wants an object or service (besides sex) from a male bonobo, she will communicate this and then offer sex. In a sense, they've invented prostitution. And guess what? It's natural.
    Please don't play semantics with me. Many words can be listed as synonyms, but still mean different things, especially when one or both words have multiple definitions. Since I used the word "function" first in this branch of the discussion, I'm pretty sure I get the final say in which definition I meant by it.
    I could just have easily used the words "process" or "mechanism" and meant the same thing. Reproduction is the process that makes sure there is more life in the future, but you have yet to demonstrate how it is the ultimate point to the existence of life. Like I said before, other mechanisms in the process of living, such as eating, respiration, growth, and death, could just as easily be chosen as "the point" of life. In fact, reproduction is much more easily avoided than eating, growth, or death, and so could be considered less important. Maybe you are confusing the purpose of life and the purpose of natural selection and evolution, which itself is still only personifying and giving imaginary intentions to something that is merely the way things happen. Outside of any philosophical or spiritual beliefs, life has no purpose, it simply is.

    That's a pretty nice filter you've got going below:
    From www.childfree.net
    There are many others to echo that sentiment. Our population is expanding and thousands of acres of wilderness are regularly paved over to create sprawling suburbs, which are primarily desirable for raising families. Nearly any place you go in public, there are kids everywhere. When a young couple gets married, dozens of people inevitably ask them "so when are you going to have kids?" It is virtually an assumption that everyone of worth is, at some point, going to have children.
    That's a result of trying to live a certain lifestyle without adequate income. If everyone didn't think they needed an SUV, cable TV, and clothes from The Gap, fewer families would be "forced" to have two incomes. My family lived near the poverty level for years, but our mother always stayed at home. Despite being "poor", we still lived quite comfortably, having not only shelter, but toys, videogames, computers, and we stayed well-fed.
    The above examples should make it pretty clear, if it wasn't already, that American culture and society exists quite a bit apart from what's shown on television, but I'll bite. Did you forget what a huge hit Home Improvement was? Not many sitcom stars get to move on to Hollywood movies like Tim Allen did. What about more current shows like Malcomb in the Middle, The Simpsons, and Family Guy? Not terribly popular?
     
  14. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    I don’t think that is terribly hard to make that assumption that most of what humans do is becoming less natural and more modern, or processed/ man made. From my previous example, iron ore is a natural element. Humans have taken that natural element and changed it, thus making an unnatural form and more man made. The same can be said for things like oil. Modern civilizations have taken the product as it formed on it own from a natural process (decay etc.) and have used it in a unnatural process of processing it to be useful in our society. To my knowledge there is no natural occurring Tupperware, or TVs, or computers, etc. More and more people are being removed from nature, living in the big cities, and have been becoming more reliant on a more processed life style. Food comes from the store (not the farm), green space is in there back yard (usually with genetically altered grass) and animals are in the ZOO (controlled environment). And nature is not a person, but it is a process. This process has been disturbed when humans began to populate the earth. The earth was formed some millions of years ago; life began, blah, blah, blah. The natural process is evident by the formation of life and the destruction of life. Over thousand of years organisms were at the mercy of nature, but humans were able to use nature to their advantage and very well be able to survive anything that nature throws at them, unlike the dinosaurs. Recent examples Hurricanes in New Orleans; unfortunately many people did lose everything, including their lives, but in the end it didn’t spell disaster for the human race.
    It also bring upon another unusual trait that isn’t really found in other species, the ability to help one another for danger. Sure as an animal in the family unit they take care of there own, but when was the last time you saw an antelope save one of its buddies from the croc at the watering hole?

    I don’t agree with your definition of nature as such. Our lives and up-bringing are the result of two factors, one being natural (traits, personalities, looks etc.) things that have genetically been passed down from your parents. The other being Nurture, things like where you grew up, what social class, race and all of society’s other pressures. I do agree that nature has a big part of who people are, but I think society has a far greater power over who a person really is. The way that north American society has been formed is the result of a widely accepted religious belief that there is a god and he has given us rules to live by. These rules are important to sustain life in a society but you could not expect these rules to be followed in the animal world. Most Religious people in North America Know and try to live by the Ten Commandments. (Had to look them up) Some are religious based, but others are just good sense about living in a society. 6 shall not murder, 7 shall not commit adultery 8 shall not steal. I think it was safe to say that all of these ‘rules’ have been broken in the last second somewhere. The point is that we have tried to contain our natural instinct by coming up with this unnatural rules for living. (if they were natural, people wouldn’t kill, steal or knock boots with your best friend wife.)

    What is a Bonobo? Sex should feel good for all reproducing beings, if it didn’t reproduction would be hindered and species would die out. Do not marginalize the issue of prostitution saying that it is a natural process. Women (usually) use prostitution as a form of survival in a male dominated society. You talk as prostitutes are in some control over their well being and are using it to there advantage, they don’t. They are not using it get favors from the males in society, they are usually forced into it like sex slaves by other members of society. It is no where near the same as an animals need for a ‘object or service’

    I wasn’t, merely stating the two words you were trying to differentiate mean close to the same thing. There is very little difference between the two words. The whole point of a work being a synonyms is that it means the same, but spelt differently. So no, many words cannot be synonyms only words that met the above criteria.

    And you don’t want me to play semantics???

    Eating, respiration, growth are all ways that humans use to continue to live. But the only way that humans can extend there gene pool after death is to reproduce. There all functions, and humans cannot exist or function with out eating, breathing etc, but after your dead, it really doesn’t matter how much you ate. Life has a purpose, it is continue to live.

    Is that a complement? Cause I am taking it as one.

    So what? It is the point of life and has been the normal thing to do; my problem is that I think that it is changing. Young couples don’t get married at 21 and have children right after. Society has made other things more important, money, carrier, possessions. If there weren’t a decrease in young people have children, there wouldn’t be and increases in people asking when they are going to have a child. Do not think that you are doing the human race a favor by not reproducing, the earth can handle it, it’s a big place.

    Agreed 110%, people should really step back to see what is really important. :thumbs2: 
    Who is to blame for this though?

    Home Improvement and Malcolm are popular because people can relate to those shows, but they do nothing to glamorize the image of the typical family. People like the show because it is like their life. Shows like Friends and Sex in the city are popular because you can’t relate, but you would like be like the people portrayed in the shows. This is negative influence in peoples life because it makes them determined to live the life of the 30 something who has little cares in life except for what shoes to wear. And I know you didn’t try to use the Simpson’s and Family Guy to prove your point. Yes they are popular, but it would have as much influence on the social well being on a person as VIP would.

    On a side note I do think that shows like Home Improvement give a negative view on fathers and men as a whole. Tim Taylor is a mans man, but I gigantic screw up. He bumbles through life being the punch line to every joke. How are young people to look at this and take anything in life seriously? Young men are growing up with the wrong sense that it is not ok to be a typical man. From my previous post it should be ok for women to grow up being strong and assertive, but in the flip side, every father figure should not be portrayed as a huge idiot on television. Look at the difference:
    Cosby Show – Bill Cosby, great dad, provider, strong father figure, respect.
    Home improvement – Tim Taylor, Screw up, immature, wrong all the time, no respect.

    How are young men to learn from this? :huh
     
  15. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +4,163
    Emphasis mine, but that's the key point to notice in your first paragraph. You're starting from the assumption that what humans do or create somehow isn't natural but what other organisms do is. Sure, tupperware isn't going to be someplace before a human shows up, but an ant mound or a beaver dam isn't going to be there before ants and beavers do their thing. In certain cases both of those can do a lot more to change the local environment than you probably think. We just do it on a much larger scale. These are all due to our innate (read: natural) capacity to reason and communicate on a higher level than most animals and having opposable thumbs. If you start from the assumption that human behavior and learning aren't natural, it is indeed easy to start from that point and reason your way back around to it, but if you start with no such assumption you can't. And in fact, you still haven't.
    [quoteIt also bring upon another unusual trait that isn’t really found in other species, the ability to help one another for danger. Sure as an animal in the family unit they take care of there own, but when was the last time you saw an antelope save one of its buddies from the croc at the watering hole?[/quote]Maybe not antelope, but in general this is so incorrect it's not even funny. Not long ago on this very forum there was a story about a that spent it's life rescuing trapped or injured cats without ever being trained to do so. Showing concern for another animal that's not only separate from its adopted family unit but not even of the same species demonstrates the trait you're talking about even better than just looking after our own species. If you look, you'll also find countless stories of dolphins rescuing drowning humans. The list goes on.

    Stop right there. How does such a society come to exist and what is it's purpose? We didn't just climb down from the trees one day and say "hey, let's make religions and skyscrapers!" It's a slow evolutionary process, and the mental and social facilities that make it possible is a survival mechanism. Plenty of other species exhibit the same survival mechanisms of learning, reasoning, communicating and passing on shared information to future generations. We just happen to be more advanced at it. This is why it's natural.
    Actually, it's been discovered that even some of the less advanced species of monkeys have learned rules that the other monkeys of their kind expect them to follow. For example, if one finds food it is expected to give out a certain cry that lets the others know to come share it. If the monkey is caught being selfish and trying to conceal the food for itself, it is scorned by the others. Extremely simple as it may be, this does demonstrate an established moral culture that is passed on between generations.
    A bonobo is a small ape, sometimes called a "pigmy chimp". It's a very close relative of the chimpanzee, but seems to be more socially sophisticated.
    Not entirely true. For female cats, the act of sex is excruciatingly painful. This is why they have to become so desperate at the peak of their heat cycle. Otherwise they would likely avoid sex. [/quote]Do not marginalize the issue of prostitution saying that it is a natural process. Women (usually) use prostitution as a form of survival in a male dominated society. You talk as prostitutes are in some control over their well being and are using it to there advantage, they don’t. They are not using it get favors from the males in society, they are usually forced into it like sex slaves by other members of society. It is no where near the same as an animals need for a ‘object or service’[/quote]Prostitution is the act of offering sex in exchange for goods (such as money) or services. The circumstances or reasons for it can differ between societies, and in this case species. And just so you know, bonobo society is considered to be matriarchal and female-dominated.
    Like I already said, and as should be obvious if you've spend any length of time speaking English, many words have multiple meanings. Even single-meaning synonyms can have very different shades of connotation. To be a synonym means that it has or can have a similar meaning to another word, not that it can be used as a blanket replacement for the other. In this case, "function" does in fact have several different meanings. I've explained what definition I had in mind, and gone to lengths to explain my meaning, but you insist on focusing on an alternate definition of the word, so you are, in fact, playing at semantics. It ought to be very clear what I meant by now.
    Sure, but that just makes it a necessary process for the species as a whole. There's nothing there to say that it's "the point".
    Another assumption. After the sun explodes and life on Earth ends, it doesn't matter how much you reproduced any more than it mattered how many times you took a leak before you died. The "purpose" is all about how you personally want to look at it. Without imposing your own judgement on it (or one you got from someone else), it's all just stuff that is because it is. I would personally say that the most basic point of life is to live. All life as a whole will end completely someday, so "continuing to live" is pretty pointless. Reproducing isn't your purpose, but it does give purpose to someone that wasn't here before you did it. But again, I have the sense to admit that this is all my personal interpretation. You could, I suppose, argue that continuing life for as long as possible is our purpose... but if that's true we've got to be able to get off of this plantet before a few more million or billion years are over... which would mean that human technology might all just be the necessary natural evolutionary adaptation to continue our "purpose" after that point.
    I'd like to hear exactly how this is a problem.
    Maybe that's because as a species we're not anywhere remotely near any risk of dying out? At its core, society is a gigantic survival mechanism. Most species do have natural mechanisms that try to limit population growth, so maybe this is just one of ours.
    Okay, for starters I want to see you finish the line of thought you started and explain why we should all be expected or obligated to have children. Next I'd like to see some research on the part I put in bold. If that were true, then there wouldn't be a need for species to have population controls. If I were to play the hypocrite and assume your nature vs man duality, I would say that what's unnatural is the way we've been [/i]circumventing[/i] biological limits on reproduction. What allows us to have so many people? Why, it's the marvel of modern technology and medicine! Many people who would "naturally" be infertile are taking hormone treatments or hiring surrogate mothers for their wombs. Women without a fertile partner are seeking artificial insemenation. All of this, by your standards, is extremely unnatural.
    Which is... reproducing? :peoples: 
    I'd say greedy selfish parents.
    I personally wouldn't like to be like any of those people, but maybe that's why I dont' watch much television. Explain though, if the ultimate point of life is having children, and it's what we naturally want most, why would such portrayals of childless lifestyles on television be so alluring?
    I agree the materialism is bad and the shows tend to be shallow, and that's certainly negative, but that mean that being 30 without children is bad.
    I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
    On the one hand, you have a bit of a point there. On the other hand, if we analyzed every show on television by what it might teach people and changed them accordingly, TV would be an even more miserably boring wasteland than it already is. I think people find those shows amusing because they know it's not a good example. I think grown men identify with the character of Tim Taylor because they know what it's like to have simple needs, big plans, and good intentions, but to have it all go wrong and make them look stupid in front of their friends and family. Nearly every aspect of Home Improvement is an exaggeration of what we find frustrating in our own family lives. That's true for each of the characters, and the positive message is that it all usually turns out okay if we try to understand the situation better instead of thinking selfishly. This is what the character Wilson was there to help with. Taken from that point of view, it could be perfectly healthy. People should be responsible for what sort of person they choose to be and not lay the blame on TV or society.

    The example of interpreting Home Improvement helps my point though, I think. We know that the writers of the show had some sort of intention in creating the show, but unless they explain it to us, it's just there. Then it's up to us how we see it, what we think the point is, and whether we think it's good or bad. If Home Improvement had no writers or creators then it wouldn't even have any meaning except what we gave it. Likewise, if we believe that life had no creator, then there is also no point other than what we give it. It's just there. We could say it's reproducing, or we could say it's looking at the stars, or we could say it's farting, but it's all ultimately just as pointless in the long run. If life has a creator who placed it on Earth for a reason, then that reason is the real purpose, whatever it might be. I personally am a theist, so I do believe life has a purpose, but I like to go into a debate with as few assumptions as possible. I think that assuming the presence of a deity is bad form unless it's an agreed upon assumption. In this case it's not, so I argue atheistically.
     
  16. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,603
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +4,163
    Sorry for the double post. It told me it failed the first time.