online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Type cast
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Type cast
Posted: 11/16/2007 10:03:07 AM
As an actor myself, I can tell you that many actors are not very versatile. They're never required to be. This is especially true of film and television actors (less so for those doing commercials). Casting directors choose actors for their looks first, and their abilities second. Add to that the sheer number of actors out there, and casting directors are able to choose the guy who is most like the character. The result is that actors never learn to be something other than they already are.

Stage actors are a little better off, unless the're cast in a long-running show (like Cats).

I watch for the Bill & Ted moment in each Keanu movie. There always seems to be one. In the Matrix, during the jump program scene, Morpheus jumps across, and Neo says, "Whoah!" Pure Bill & Ted.

Still, a lot of actors make great careers without being able to act. Good lord, John Wayne won an OSCAR while Richard Burton never did. Sean Connery isn't a great actor, he just has tons of charisma. Even good actors, like Harrison Ford, don't need to act much anymore. It's just the nature of the beast.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 318 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/15/2007 10:42:19 AM

And an inflammatory statement is what ever the person inflamed decides is inflammatory really


Are you suggesting that the implication that one is a murderer might not be inflammatory?

Suggesting legal abortion is not in the same ballpark. One is a personal slight, the other is not. It might be inflammatory inasmuch as someone might disagree vigorously, but it does not step into the realm of the personal attack/insult/slight.

That is, there are those that might consider legal abortion a good thing. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks murder is a good thing. Thus the implications of each statement are very different in character.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 314 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/15/2007 8:09:30 AM
You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs. Not everyone agrees with them, however, and calling it murder is decidedly inflammatory. I believe that's Trish's point.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 298 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 9:17:01 PM
That's quite interesting. I wonder if the "assumed liability" aspect of the law would be considered constitutional in Canada. It seems (at first glance) to violate the right to equality, as well as making a presumption of "guilt," both of which have resulted in laws being struck down. Of course, we have a legal recourse to override such concerns under certain conditions ( I don't know if the US has anything similar - in my experience, US Law seems somewhat less flexible).

Very interesting, though. I may have to look into it further.

I agree wholeheartedly in your final sentiments. The discussion went off in its own direction, and has been relatively calmly discussed, all things considered. I wish only the best to the OP and her friend.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 292 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 3:27:28 PM
While it may be true that men don't have that choice, I don't think it doesn't matter. Quite the contrary. I think it's the crux of the issue. Someday someone is going to challenge the law on the basis of this very point, I think. I'll be watching with interest.

(I'd have been disappointed if you didn't mean the pun!)

The example is not quite complete. It should refer to cancer by second hand smoke in someone else (just as the pregnancy happens to someone else by virtue of his actions).
If he risks the cancer (with her acceptance, because she likes the smell of cigars), but also knows there's a cure (ie. he can risk a pregnancy knowing there's a "cure"), then he can't be held responsible for the cancer if she won't use the cure. Yes, it's because of his cigar (is this cigar really a cigar?), but she's responsible for not taking the cure, and therefore all subsequent consequences.

You choose excellent examples, I must say.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 290 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 1:58:29 PM
Again, I disagree. I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me unfair to give men one choice and women two. That is:

1) choose to have sex or not.
2) choose to be a parent or not.

Women have both choices to make, while men have only one? Women can have sex and choose to have no liability for the consequences, why not men?

That said, I agree that any man unwilling to take responsibility for his own offspring, regardless of logic or any other argument, is unworthy to be called a MAN.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 285 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 10:56:15 AM
I don't see Trish's point as a strictly feminist position, and she's certainly not resorted to diatribe (yet!). In fact she makes a salient point. If the man is aware that he's effectively agreeing to not have a right to choice after the fact, then he's responsible for the consequences of that choice (ie. He chose to give up his right to choose).
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 282 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 9:51:58 AM
My logic is pretty straightforward, actually. It amounts to this single statement:

No person is responsible for the choices made by another person (or) You cannot be held responsible for events over which you have no control.

If I choose to drive drunk, it is my choice and I'm solely responsible for the consequences (though, around here, bars are held responsible for the drunkenness of their patrons, which I don't agree with either).

If I choose to bungee jump using a hair elastic, the consequences are entirely my responsibility.

If I choose to have sex, I'm responsibile for the consequences of that choice. That means that in the event of pregnancy, I'm responsible for the child, unless I discharge that responsibility by removing that which I'm responsible for via adoption or abortion.

If someone else chooses to undo or prevent that removal, that's not my choice, and I cannot be held responsible for that (as in the drunk scenario, he discharges his responsibility by calling a cab. If the cab subequently crashes, it's not the drunk's fault).



and he knew that he was not going to have a say in weather or not this child was carried to term...


Quite so. If this statement were true, then the responsibility would remain his, as you say. However, as I've said, he cannot be held responsible for the choices and actions of someone else. Put another way, if he has no choice, then she has no choice either. That's the only way to make the situation equal (which, as I pointed out, would be necessary to be legal). Of course, that notion is ludicrous, so we're left with allowing him a choice as the only sensible alternative.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 265 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 1:35:00 PM
I think you've misunderstood me. The problem the law faces is that it requires equality, but equality would result in undesirable conclusions. It is therefore left with the difficult paradox you mentioned, that he hasn't the right to put her at risk. He must have the choice, but he can't have it because it puts her at risk.

Removing the woman from the equation is somewhat unrealistic, but let's go with it.

Each person is responsible for his own behaviour, as you say. The man would be responsible for the pregnancy (just as the woman would be...). Whether he protected himself or not, he's responsible for the pregnancy.
At this point you bring the woman back into it, but I'll carry on wthout her for a moment.
With him responsible for the pregancy (we'll assume he's a seahorse or something ), he has the choice of continuing or ending the pregnancy. It's his responsibility, his choice to make. It's so much easier, and very unrealistic, because the problem lies in the fact that it affects someone else.

Now to return to reality, where both partners are involved. As above, both partners are responsible for the pregnancy. Each contributed to its creation by their own choice. This means that the man has agreed to the risk of pregnancy. It doesn't mean he agrees to whatever she might decide to do with it any more than it means she agrees to whatever he wants to do with it. It's as much his as it is hers, since he's contributed to it as well, so his say should be equally as valid.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 262 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 12:25:23 PM

Ok men....so you want to have a say...you want a woman to have an abortion or give birth against her will?

Can i just ask WHO then will be responsible should any complications arise? If the woman dies on the table, will her family be adequately compensated by you? Would the woman have grounds to sue if her infertility was lost? Answers please.


You see, this is the problem the Law faces. For a law to be valid and of force, it must be equally applicable to all, regardless of gender, etc.. If she can demand his participation in the life of a child, he must also have that right. That leads to the conclusion that he be able to require her to carry the child even if she doesn't want it.

What if she aborts regardless? Is it murder? Does he have a recourse? Logic suggests the answer to these questions is yes, it would be murder, or at least criminal, yet we balk at this suggestion. No one, male or female, likes to be forced to do something they don't want to.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 259 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 11:58:22 AM
Nona:
I meant forum troll, as in posting exclusively to provoke an argument.


But enough of that.

MyI:

Hm, an interesting counterpoint.
I disagree that it is solely the man's responsibility to avoid unwanted conception. Both participants make the decision to have sex, both bear the burden of any result, whether or not birth control has been used by either party. As has been said, they both knew the risks and accepted them.

You're right, though, that the direction I've gone here suggests that the man could theoretically just walk away. Obviously that's not the preferred situation. On the other hand, the woman also has that choice. In fact, she has that choice regardless of what he decides. Imagine a situation in which the man wants to have and raise the child, but the woman wants an abortion. She could simply carry it out and he would have no recourse.

It's a thorny issue, to be sure. I'm not sure there's an ideal soution.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 254 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 10:47:26 AM
Ooo, we're nearly there!

I see what you're saying, but my position remains that the man cannot be held accountable for events over which he has no choice. If the man doing the siring is not in a position of choice, then he cannot be in a position of responsibility, either.

(Again, this is the logical assessment, I feel the need to reiterate that it is not precisely my personal view)
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 252 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 10:33:45 AM

Mojo: I did not even bother to completely read y our response to me, as usual, it's "WHINING"! I see your name on here is "MOJO". Why don't you try to obtain some of that and stop whining. I do not care if I insulted you, I do not care if I hurt y our feelings, you speak lunacy in reference to women, what's fair for you is fair for someone else, get over the fact that a woman can voice a view, I"m tired of viewing the whining and your conspiracy theories, that is all they are, thank you.


Begone, troll.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 251 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 10:24:09 AM

Ladies on this thread: Have you noticed the whiners on this thread? I must say, I waited to respond again to this thread again. Notice how particular men would comment with no regard to the actual topic, (I've tried to stay on topic, but the thread deviated, largely due to your influence) which is a very strong woman attempting to overcome atrocity (adversity, I think you mean), no matter the hand that life dealt her, I admire that by the way, yes I'm pro choice, but I have always been accepting of what the pro lifers within our country have done, they have created alternatives, with adoption alternatives, education, etc....where I do support abortion, which is not what this woman is obviously chosing to do, I also support a decision of she wanting to keep her baby, and YES,,,while the baby is INSIDE HER belly, the baby belongs to solely she. (also incorrect, the child is as much his as it is hers)

The men who have jumped off topic within this thread have made comments about equality, THEY being able to make the choice for women, THEY being able to say as the writer above me stated "OOps, my bad" and then skirt their moralistic duties as well as financial duties, without any regard for a child which was created by their actions. (You'll note that I've repeatedly decried either party deciding anything for the other.) There has been men on this thread which unfornately have been a minority, that actually spoke of responsibility and being REAL men, that pleased me, but as I stated, they have been a minority on this thread.

It's about control ladies. The sexists within this thread speak of equality, but only if it "favors" a man (Equality cannot favour anyone, by definition). This thread is enough to make any woman think twice about not protecting one's self for even within our liberalistic times at least legally anyways, we still have a very sexist community, which is men. I have stated before, men have been informing women what to do with their bodies for decades, men have been on rampages against women within our history not only within the United States, but internationally. For anyone who does not believe this analogy, read about the Salem Witch Trials, where populations of women within towns were literally being wiped out by groups of men who were literally going town to town murdering women on the sole excuse that they were witches, which was a farce.

I have lived in countries where women are not allowed to drive or vote. Women were not allowed to walk by themselves. Women have to be a virgin upon marriage or risk getting married and after conviction, face public stoning. Men in that particular country of course do not have to be virgins upon marriage, in fact, promiscuity is encouraged for men in that country (How fortunate we're not IN such a place). Therefore, this is why I have literally been stalking this thread, some of the responses from the men on this thread have been horrendous. One spoke of women merely being sperm receptacles, one spoke of a woman having to take responsibility, but the man skirting his responsibilities, this is enough to scare anyone into not having unprotected sex.

We women need to understand from this thread, the sexists are out there, the "woman haters" are obviously out there. There are men who literally believe that women are solely upon this earth to cater to their needs and wants, and yes, this includes pleasing them sexually. We need to take control of our lives and not leave protection up to men while having sex, it should be a individualistic necessity, I also feel this applies to the opposite gender, being men.

No matter what has been said within this thread, I commend the strong woman who has not only chosen to have the baby, but to bring this topic into a public forum, or at least allow her friend to do so, education is the key ladies (Up to here I agreed) and without it, we play right into the hands of all the control freaks who only care about THEIR needs and will cast you aside as if you were nothing more than trash. I do understand that not all men are the same as some of the sexists I have viewed on this thread, thank god for that. There are actually men out there who DO believe in equality of the genders, they believe in taking responsibility.

We women are the genders which was chosen to give birth to children. There is a reason for that ladies. We are strong, and let no man take your pride as well as choices away, for when all the sexists of this world fall by the wayside, and yes, life itself takes care of them, strong women will still be standing, watching them fall. :)



For your information, since you seem to be somewhat unclear. I'll point out that I'm Canadian, so my knowledge of American Law is limited.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." (italics mine)

The Constitution of the United States of America, 14th Amendment:

"1. ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (italics mine)


EQUALITY, ftw.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 249 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/10/2007 10:09:26 AM
Lol, I think we're experiencing the same feeling, Trish. No matter, I'm happy to keep rehashing until understanding can be found.

I do understand your point, but I think you're a little off the mark, if I can judge from your example. It's actually a good analogy, but allow me to rephrase it:

The drunk in your example is responsible for all the consequences of his being drunk. If he drives home and kills someone, he is responsible for that consequence. This follows legally and logically. On the other hand, if he took responsibility for his situation by calling a cab, he cannot be held responsible for subsequent events, such as a crash. This also follows legally and logically.

Like the drunk, the father is responsible for all the consequences of having sex. If he sires a child, he is responsible for that consequence. On the other hand, if he took responsibility for his situation by arranging for abortion or adoption, he cannot be held responsible for subsequent events, such as a birth.

The argument that the father remains responsible because he sired the child in the first place (ie. created the situation) would be no different than arguing the drunk should still be responsible because he called the cab there in the first place (ie. created the situation). It simply isn't logical. Once again, that doesnt mean it's wrong.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 240 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/9/2007 1:28:03 PM
Agreed, not wanting an abortion is not the same as not wanting the child, I was just keeping it simple for the sake of discussion. It's beside the point though. She has the choice to continue the pregnancy or not, and then the choice to keep the child or not (adoption). Either way, it's illogical to make the father responsible for the results of her choice. Not necessarily wrong, just illogical.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 238 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/9/2007 11:01:58 AM
Well, I have a couple of people to respond to, and I hope I can clarify a couple of things.

First off, let me say again that I am playing devil's advocate to some extent here. I personally believe that both parents should be required to take responsibility for the welfare of the child, regardless of other considerations. To put it another way, neither the man nor the woman has any right to force the other into something they don't want to do. The child, however, DOES have that right.

Annasthasia:
Excellent post. I don't agree with everything you say, but your point is to help the OP, and that is what the thread is supposed to be about. Kudos to you.

Intheswim & Oldsoul:
Thedebateaboutthe ownership of his seed is pointless (though I'd say if he consented to having sex, he tacitly consented to the "donation" of his seed). The real question is whether one parent can be made responsible for the choices of the other. Laying any kind of blame is counterproductive.

Trishthedish:
I'm not taking the moral viewpoint at all. I've been dealing exclusively in objective logic.
A person's responsibility ends when they choose to end it. In this case, if the man chooses to end the pregnancy, he has no responsibility to it if the woman chooses to continue it (likewise, he would have no rights regarding it later on...). This is the simple logical position. A person cannot logically be held accountable for the choices of another person, regardless of gender.
You're correct, of course, that this isn't reality. I'm not even saying it should be. The needs of the child still have to be considered. The logic is kind of fuzzy here as well, though. Let us allow that my previous point is correct, that the woman cannot make the man responsible for her choice. Can he child do so? The child would not exist but for his contribution to it's conception, so it might be argued that the father must assume some responsibility for it. Then again, neither would it exist but for the mother's choice to continue the pregnancy. Logically, it remains exclusively her responsibility.
Fortunately, the Law is not bound to follow the logical approach.

MyI:
I would agree that men should not be able to insist on an abortion, however if the mother chooses not to abort, against the man's wishes, she should not be able to insist on his participation in the child's welfare. Having the child was her choice, and he is not responsible for her choices.
Taking responsibility means taking care of the situation, not necessarily the child. If he is against abortion and chose not to abort the pregnancy, then he would be responsible for the consequences of that choice (a child being born, and needing to be supported). If he chose to abort and his choice was overridden by another person, the burden of responsibility must transfer to that other person.
I'm not sure what the point you're making is, with the business school comment. I was referring to the burden of having a child, physical, social and financial. I was merely suggesting that she consider whether she is prepared for that burden, with or without the support of the father. Having a child is about much more than money.

Lela:
I have tried to have a friendly discussion (though I warned of the potential for disaster), and with the exception of one post, I hope I've suceeded.
If I've given anyone (with one exception) cause for offense, I do apologize. Such was never my intent.


I hope my position is clear to all.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 226 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/8/2007 4:00:20 PM
All right, Nona, I draw the line at insults, I don't care what gender you are.

I have presented my arguments in a consistent, thoughtful manner. I have NOT whined and I have not attacked anyone personally.

You have proved nothing, and your gender has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I "was" a student of Law, past tense, because I graduated. I also made no claim to be "expert," simply informed and educated. There's a difference.

I have not said ANYTHING sexist, and I am extremely offended at the suggestion. Seriously, how DARE you? Who the hell do you think you are? I have discussed EQUALITY. That is NOT sexist.

You have missed the point of this thread entirely. AS I SAID ON THE FIRST PAGE, getting into this debate was not helpful. The OP was looking for advice, not your diatribes against all things male. I tried several times to steer the discussion away from this inflammatory subject, to no avail. Note that the OP has not posted for FIVE pages.

You need to grow up and learn how to have a civilized discussion objectively. Further, you need to learn how to reason logically. You seem unable to present a coherent argument without resorting to personal attacks, nonsequiturs and unsubstantiated opinion.

Enough is enough. You've shown your true colours rather well. I therefore refuse to further dignify your comments with any response. Since I know you will attempt to soothe your fragile ego by claiming this is another victory, I will state categorically that you have won nothing. You have proven yourself childish, and I will not argue with a child.

Thank you.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 223 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/8/2007 2:44:16 PM

You want to grandstand as well as proclaim freedom of choice,but you have consistently downed women within this thread for utilizing "their" freedom of choice, wow, what a contradiction. I am not bashing you, I proved you wrong, it's that simple, but I guess you are traumatized at this point with me being a female, alas, such is life. I personally feel that you do not know what a "ad-hominem" is, if you did, you would realize, I was not attacking your character, go ahead and whine and run away[b/], if only the other sexists would follow you, this would be a much more nice thread.


Note the highlighted bits. All of this is ad hominem. You see, I do know what it means.


...I proved you wrong...


You did nothing of the sort. You expressed opinion, as all of us have done. Declaring "victory" doesn't make it so, and is pretty low, if you ask me.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 222 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/8/2007 2:38:45 PM

Actually the law does NOT have to consider a man's feelings to be just. Just is according to the law and the precedents which are presented with the law if any exist. Just to "YOU" is not just to the law, therefore, get over your whining and realize what you are typing makes absolutely no sense. Yes, I speak of men and women alike taking responsibility, where a man (for the 100th time) does not have to assume moral responsibilities, he does and will assume financial responsibility or else risk going to jail etc. I don't think any woman would want someone around their child if they did not intend to be a father, the law can not force a man to be a father, the same as the law can not force a man and woman to not have sex, the laws which say need reformation, try actually bringing it up in a political arena as compared to a dating website, I"m so sick of hearing all the future "deadbeats" in here whine and cry about equality, as if you have any right.


1) Actually, for a law to be just, it has to be equally applicable to all, regardless of gender (that's in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I don't know exactly where it would be for you, but I expect it's there). Justice requires fairness and equality. The Law doesn't have to consider this, but such a law would not be Just, by definition.

I also spoke of both parties taking responsibility, but now you speak of moral responsibility as if it were an objective truth. What one person considers moral may differ considerably from another person. It's best to avoid this line of thinking, as it will go nowhere.

What I've said is that it is unfair, unjust and nonsensical for any person to be held responsible for the choices and actions of another. If the woman chooses to have the child when other options are available then the consequences of that choice rest with her and no one else. That's basic logic. Of course, I've also said that this is a somewhat simplistic assessment that fails to consider the welfare of the child that results from that choice.

Also, for the record, I have discussed this matter in more "appropriate" arenas, as I have been a student of Law, and involved in politics locally.

Accusing me of whining is an ad hominem comment seeking to infantilize my comments, and does nothing to strengthen your position. The same is true of labeling anyone who disagrees with you a "future deadbeat." Your attitude is frankly astonishing. We absolutely DO have a right to equality.


The notion of a man not understanding the maternal instincts of women is actually more less common sense. Are you informing all of us here on this thread that you know what it's like to feel a baby kick? Are you informing all of us you have given birth to a child? Of course not, you are phsically incapable, due to your gender, therfore, once again I say, you can not relate to a woman's maternal instinct, to say otherwise shows that you are possibly having a gender issue. Don't demean men's emotional involvement? I honestly wish you would make your mind up, firstly, you are stating men should not be involved in a child's life if he doesn't want to be, the soapbox you have been whining from is obvious, however, on the other hand, you are stating for women to not demean a man's emotional involvement, I must say, please make your mind up here on which side of the fence you want to whine from, you are contradicting yourself which shows you must be confused. Men have no say to a woman's body, PERIOD. Get over the control issue, besides, according you, a man should not be involved anyways, if he choses not to be, but here you are grandstanding once again about a man having a choice, as if you or any man has that right, you do not, and the law agrees with me, get over it.


2) That I don't know how it feels to have a baby kick inside me does not change the fact that I can develop an emotional attachment to that child that is just as strong as yours. Don't demean the paternal instinct. It may not be the same as the maternal instinct, but it is just as strong, and just as valid. Where the paternal instinct does not exist, he may well choose not keep the child. The exact same thing can be said of the maternal instinct, so trying to put one above the other is faulty reasoning.

Also, I'm not confused, and I'm not contradicting myself in any way. The obvious attempt to obfuscate my comments will fail. All I have said is that the male must be afforded the same right to choice that the woman is. If he has no control over her, she should have no control over him (but the child would have control over both, perhaps, but this would require it to have been born first).


Whether it's ridiculous in your eyes or not, it's the law, therefore, what you think pertaining to this matter is just that, an opinion and does not hold warrant to the decisions in which women have made and do make on a daily basis in conjunction to their own bodies.


3) Ridiculous laws are struck down. If everyone thought as you seem to, there would still be slaves in the US, and women would not be working or voting.



By the way, you may find it better to quote as I have done, using the comand: {quote}stuff you want to quote{/quote} (use square brackets, though...). See the guide above the smileys to the right.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 218 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/8/2007 12:31:12 PM
I will correct you Trish, I think you misunderstood.

I'm saying that since both partners chose to have sex, knowing the possibility of pregnancy existed, protected or not, both are responsible for the consequences of that choice. We're actually in agreement (unless I've misinterpreted you! ).

It's in what comes after that we seem to disagree.

I'm saying that after the pregnancy has happened, they are each responsible for making a choice. They choose to keep or not to keep the child (either by abortion or adoption). Logically, since one is responsible only for one's own actions and choices, he cannot be held responsible for her choice to have the child (I should mention at this point that I'm playing devil's advocate here to some extent. My personal opinion is that both parents created the child, whatever else might be argued, so both parents are responsible for that child, period).

Of course, logic is not the be-all and end-all. The welfare of the child has yet to be considered, and balanced against the rights of the parents.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Are you old enough to be my dad?
Posted: 11/8/2007 11:29:54 AM
Have to say, it goes both ways. I go to a local bar quite often where the local university crowd hangs out. I invariably find myself getting hit on by very young women, sometimes in their teens. It works both ways.

Honestly, I don't think age is a big deal, but there comes a point where you have to look at yourself and wonder if you're in the wrong.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 212 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/8/2007 10:05:38 AM
Why are you snipping at me, Trish? I actually agreed with you, and I don't believe I took you out of context.

In a previous post I went over this, but I'll go over it again so you don't have to go hunting.

The logical process goes like this:

1) Both are responsible for taking protective measure in the sex act. If both (or neither) ensures appropriate measures are taken, then both are responsible if a pregnancy occurs.

2) If preganacy occurs, there is a choice. The pregnancy can be terminated (continued with the option of adoption falls into this category, too) or continued. Responsibility for the consequences of the choice falls to whoever makes the choice. If she chooses to continue and he does not, it's her choice and her responsibility. If he chooses to continue, it becomes his responsibility (though the practicality of requiring her to continue the pregnancy opens up a whole other debate). If both choose to continue, then both take responsibility.

3) It is therefore unfair, and unjust, to make one parent subject to being responsible for the choice of the other. No one can be held responsible for the choices of another.

Is the man responsible for the pregnancy? Yes, absolutely (as is the woman). However, if you take away his right to choose to deal with that pregnancy, you take away his responsibility for the result.

Analogy: The man who built the atom bomb was not responsible for its use. That fell to the man who made the decision to use it.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 205 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/8/2007 7:39:40 AM


1)
Is it fair that a man's feelings is not considered when a woman wants to abort or keep a child? Well, that's quite easily answered, of course not, but can one imagine if a woman always listened to a man in reference of having a child or not? More times to none, men who are young, or men who do not want children, more times to none, will opt for an abortion, blame it on shock, blame it on irresponsibility, whatever, of course there will always be those particular men who will and have indeed stepped up to the plate and taken and will take responsibility for their actions. A man has absolutely no right to inform a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body, largely due to the fact, it's HER body, not HIS, so whether it's unfair or not, it's life. I'm tired of viewing all the woulda, coulda, shoulda's.

2) I feel a woman can not be blamed for wanting to keep a child. Men can never relate to that maternal instinct's that most women tend to have even during pregnancy, and it's easy for a man to say "abort", when he is indeed not the one "killing" his child, it's a consequence that any woman has and will have to live with, it can be very traumatic for a woman to deal with, therefore, it hold's no warrant for any man to be able to have the "say" in abortions or otherwise. Even in stating this, all women do not have maternal instincts, if they did, we would not find babies in dumpsters, etc...but I feel each situation is individualistic, there are good mother's as well as bad mother's, same with the opposite gender, bad father's, good father's.

3) Summing all of this up, men have no say in the rights of a woman to choose, if she chooses to keep the baby, the man has to live with that decision, if not from a moral standpoint, a financial standpoint, and that is a risk that men/women take when having unprotected sex. Get over it!


I've numbered your points so I can address them.

1) The rights of the man have to be considered by the Law if the law is to be just. As you say, to do otherwise is unfair, and fairness is integral to Justice. A law that is unfair is therefore unjust and should be struck down.
You speak of the man taking responsibility for his actions, but you do not speak of the woman doing likewise. It is SHE that has made the choice to have the child. That was her choice, her responsibility (I went over this in my previous post). The man has no right to tell her what to do with her body, but neither has the woman any right to tell him what to do with his life. That is a double-standard.

2) The notion that a man cannot understand the maternal instinct is somewhat insulting. Do you not think that men have a paternal instinct? I'll tell you straight up, we do, and it can be just as strong as your instincts. Don't demean our emotional investment. That said, an abortion is likely to be somewhat more taxing for the woman, as the physical stress falls entirely upon her, and the final choice to go through with it still rests with her. This does not obviate the man's right to have a say. Again, you're setting up a double-standard. You suggest that the man should have no rights in connection with "his" child, except to pay for it.

3) The idea that the man would have no choice with regard to that which they are expected to take responsibility for is ridiculous. I'll quote you again.


...if she chooses to keep the baby, the man has to live with that decision...


Again, no one can be held responsible for the choice of another person. If SHE chooses to have the child, then logically the responsibility for its care falls to her.

From TrishtheDish...

Weather [sic] you have knowledge of, agree with or not, or think it to be logical or not, does not make you exemt [sic] from the law. It is what it is, and until the laws change, you are just going to have to deal with it. At this juncture, debating about weather [sic] the law is fair or not is pointless. It doesn't change what the laws are.


This is true to some degree. Disagreeing with the law doesn't make you exempt. However, debating it isn't pointless. A would-be father could theoretically stand up for his rights and challenge the law in court, and he might even win (though I doubt it). As I've said, the logic of the analysis is fine, but unsatisfactory. It doesn't satisfy the emotional response we have to the situation. It also doesn't address the child's rights and needs. Does logic fall before pragmatism? The Law would seem to agree.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 176 (view)
 
Is this torture to a guy?
Posted: 11/7/2007 9:56:55 AM

Latest update on the curtain rod and weird wall, I don't think it is an actual wall just air and paint.


You have the opposite problem I have. My walls are all solid concrete...

 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 178 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/7/2007 9:48:28 AM
I've really tried hard to stay out of this debate, it's not helping the OP in any way. Still, one thing that's been said several times has finally irked me to the point of comment.


It doesn't matter if [a law] is wrong, it's the law.


I've paraphrased slightly, as this is essentially what's being said. I cannot and will not ever subscribe to this line of thinking. The purpose of the Law is, in theory, to promote Justice. When a law is unjust, or "wrong," then it must be opposed and changed. This is the responsibility of every citizen in a given society. To meekly acquiesce to an unjust law is unacceptable.

That said, there remains the question of whether the law being referenced is unjust.

There has been considerable debate on this question, and we are certainly not going to resolve it here. Further, there is the question of whether the law being referred to is in force in the UK. Either way, it isn't helping the OP debatnig this.

Looking at an emotionally charged subject in a totally detached, logical manner never results in a satisfactory conclusion. If we looked at it logically, we get this:

Both individuals have a part in the creation of the child. Both individuals have a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Logically, responsibility for the preganacy would fall to whichever participant failed to take that responsibility.

Alternatively, both might fail, or the measures taken might fail, resulting in an unexpected pregnancy. Who then, does reponsibility fall upon?

The answer is, both of them. However, measures may still be taken after the fact. They have the choice to continue the pregnancy, or to end it. With this being the case, responsibility for the pregnancy logcally falls upon whoever chooses to continue it.

This would lead to several possible scenarios.

First, they might agree to have the child. In this case, both accept responsibility for the child.

Second, HE wants the child and she does not. In this event, he is willing to take full responsibility for the child. She would not be required to provide any kind of support for it, and would give it up to him. What of the pregancy, though? Is she required to carry a child she does not want? In any case, as he has assumed responsibility for the child (should it be born), she bears no responsibility as he as taken that on by his own choice.

Third, SHE wants it and he doesn't. In his case, she is making the choice to have the child and thus responsibility for it falls to her. He would not be required to provide support as the situation is now her responsibility, by her own choice.

The basic principle here is that no one is responsible for anyone else's actions or decisions. If she is the one that has chosen to have the child, then he cannot be held responsible for her decision.

As I say, however, this is a dispassionate analysis. It follows logically, but it is unsatisfying to many on a fundamental, if emotional, level. The law does not reflect the logic here, so in my view it is a bad law ("wrong" is a loaded term). It comes down to this: if she is to be afforded a choice, so must he. That would be fair. That would be just. That should be the law. Of course, at the moment, it isn't.


How does any of this help the OP? It doesn't. We can debate until we're blue in the face, but that isn't the point of the thread. We should really try to stay on topic.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Can you really heal a broken heart?
Posted: 11/5/2007 4:57:36 PM
It really depends on you. I still miss my ex. It's been 5 years . For me there is no mending, just acclimating. That is, you will get used to it, and you will move on. It may actually be easier for you because he died (strange as it may seem, and my most sincere condolences). In my case I was betrayed. That leaves a whole different kind of wound. In your case, there is grief, but no betrayal, no rage.

I truly hope you can move past this, it will get easier in time.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 85 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/5/2007 12:06:14 PM
Boy, a lot can happen in a day, eh?

There's been a lot of personal attacks here, and a lot of personal opinion. I hate to say it, but I called it. This is a heated topic, and it's not going to be resolved here. Arguing about the morality of abortion is pointless and is off topic. What the couple in question should or shouldn't have done is moot. We need to consider what the future holds for them, and provide sage counsel, not criticism.

She has a choice. She can choose to have the child or not to. If she chooses the latter, she can abort or give it up for adoption.

The remaining contentious point is what HIS choice is to be, or if he even has a choice. Given that she has the option of having or not having the child, it may be somewhat selfish to force him to support her if she chooses to keep the child. She would be choosing for them both, meaning he would have no choice. On the other hand, he does bear some responsibility for the situation and it is not reasonable and is just as selfish for him to just walk away from it. It's a difficult situation because of this.

My advice is this:

They should talk about this at length and make a decision about his role. I think speaking to a counselor during this process would be wise. You say she wants to keep the child (which is fine, as long as she's prepared for the changes that will make to her life), so they would need to discuss what his contribution is to be. I suggest they have their decision drawn up by a lawyer in the event enforcement becomes necessary. If they can't agree, court is the only other solution.

My best wishes go with them both.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
she got pregnant
Posted: 11/4/2007 11:17:09 AM

Sure, why not. Dispose it off. Flush it down the toilet. Abortion is after all fail-safe contraception.



We should really avoid the debate about the morality of abortion. That's not the point here.

(btw, there were two of us that suggested adoption...)

:)
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/4/2007 10:23:19 AM
Tough situation. Abortion is a very hot-button topic, and personal opinion is just that - personal.

I have to agree with iiceiice. He's said he doesn't want it, so I'm not sure it would be entirely fair to go after him for support. On the other hand, he does have to assume some responsibility for his actions. Perhaps she could make some kind of amicable arrangement with him.

As for the having of an abortion, that's her decision. I don't know how old she is, but she has to realize that bringing a child into the world is a very taxing business, especially if you're doing it alone. She had best be prepared to give up much of the freedom she currently enjoys, and take responsibility for the child. If she's not up to that, then she had best start cnosidering alternatives, such as abortion or adoption or what have you.

Best of luck to her.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
When you start using the 'L' word.
Posted: 11/1/2007 11:32:28 AM
Ya, that's a distinction the second of my two loves used to make. Eventually, she said both to me, but later still said, "not anymore."

The rule still applies. If you're not absolutely sure, don't say it.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
When you start using the 'L' word.
Posted: 11/1/2007 9:59:52 AM
Personally, I'm very slow to use "the L word." I believe there's no more significant thing you can say to a person. There's nothing more important or powerful we can say than "I love you." That means it's not something you can take back, and you really don't want to be wrong about it.

In my life, I've only said it to two people, and I absolutely meant it. It took me a long time to say it, but when I did, I was sure. My feelings for those women will be with me until the day I die.

To me, the most hurtful, devestating thing you can say to someone is, "I don't love you anymore," or worse, "I never really did love you."

I've had both.

It's just my opinion, of course, but you start using the L word when you're sure, and not before. The timing depends. Whether you're sure in an hour or a year makes no difference, just be sure.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
 
What are some important things you should know when you're a musician?
Posted: 10/27/2007 7:16:36 AM

I met a very famous hard rock personality once and I asked him that very same question. His answer "Expect to bust you balls and expect to get your balls busted". Wow, Rock & Roll!!!



It's a long way to the top, if you want to Rock and Roll.

 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 25 (view)
 
contacting an ex
Posted: 10/25/2007 10:08:06 AM
DO NOT CALL.

Seriously, it can only lead to disaster. I know whereof I speak... er... type.

I understand your desire for some kind of contact. It's been 5 years since my ex dropped me in a manner not unlike yours, and I still have the urge to call her. At first, I yielded to the urge and it only generated animosity. Don't fall into that trap.

On the other hand, you might allow yourself a little slack, too. I found certain days particularly difficult, such as Christmas and her birthday. Try doing what I did and prepare a carefully worded Merry Christmas or Happy Birthday message (NOT Valentine's Day!). Call her and use your prepared message as a guide.

You should be as neutral as possible. Don't reminice, don't beg for her attention. Just be direct and cheerful.

Say something like, "Hi, I just wanted to call and wish you a happy birthday, and see how you were doing."

Keep it short and to the point. If she doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, WRAP IT UP. If she does keep you talking, be sure to listen to her. It could signal that she misses you too. Of course, it could also just be friendly conversation. Be sure you can tell the difference. Either way, let her make any romantic comments. YOU STAY NEUTRAL.

It didn't get me back together with my ex, and it likely won't for you, but it may make you feel a bit better.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Why do I seem to attract more women now that I'm older?
Posted: 10/25/2007 7:16:29 AM

In my situation i am more sure of how i want to approach women. I ,m real ,honest and treat them with respect,allways look them in the eyes . (several sic)


Actually, I've been doing that since I first started noticing girls. I had tons of girl friends, but never any girlfriends, if you take my meaning. Maybe I just couldn't see the signs. As someone has said, we're nevr really taught how to do so, and men generally don't talk about these things (at least when we're younger...).

Like I say, it's rough out there.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 92 (view)
 
Serious relationship after sex the first day?
Posted: 10/19/2007 7:20:20 AM
Yep. I've had two serious relationhips in my life, both began that way (more or less).
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Why do I seem to attract more women now that I'm older?
Posted: 10/19/2007 7:18:11 AM
I have noticed the same thing, actually, and it seems to be all rather young women! It's flattering and all, but how do you deal with that? I'm 39, do I flirt back with a 21 year old?

Men do mature more slowly than women, it's a biological and psychological fact.

We also aren't as good at spotting subtle signs women give out. It takes a long time to clue into that (I'm pretty sure I haven't figured ti out yet).

Isn't it odd that we can see the signs when they're directed at someone else? How many times have you had the conversation:

"Dude, she's totally into you!"
"What? Are you kidding?"
"Seriously, you should make a move."

It's rough out there.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
How do you stop loving someone?
Posted: 10/15/2007 2:37:19 PM
In my experience you never stop loving someone. In my case, I still miss my lost loves. There have only been a couple. I honestly don't believe it will ever go away. That doesn't mean I can't fall in love again, and the same is true for you. Eventually, you'll stop feeling the loss so keenly, and you'll remember the good things.

What I do is write down things to remind me of the good moments. The joy of the day she came back from her vacation, or the weekend we spent together somewhere special. Sometimes these won't help, and I'll wallow in self pity, but often they will, and I'll smile. The trick is to find something that works for you.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 117 (view)
 
Female singers in hard rock/metal.
Posted: 10/3/2007 10:05:32 AM
Wow. You've never heard of Lee Aaron...?

Definitely Lee Aaron, but also Joan Jett!!, Heart (Ann & Nancy Wilson), Hole (Courtney Love), Lita Ford, Garbage (Shirley Manson), Evanescence (Amy Lee), Siouxie and the Banshees (Siousxie!), Pat Benetar, Blondie (Debbie Harry), Janis Joplin (older rock, not really metal), Starship (Grace Slick), Pink, sooo many others....
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
What are some important things you should know when you're a musician?
Posted: 10/3/2007 9:56:28 AM
I am a singer, though I can't read music at all. I also drum (somewhat). Because I don't know the music theory, I don't think I can call myself a musician. The capacity to create something unique just isn't there.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 146 (view)
 
Is this torture to a guy?
Posted: 9/27/2007 9:19:09 AM
LOL!

For the record, I'd like to point out that I shave daily (twice, if I'm going out), and dress well (I'm an actor, it's occupational...). My work clothes come off when I get home, I don't own a baseball cap, and I have never burped or farted publicly or in mixed company. Oh, and I have plenty of hair, if the pic doesn't give it away (none on my back... that I know of...).

Men have it tough, but it's a different tough than women have. Yes, there are a lot of expectations on women as far as appearance goes, although that's not entirely a bad thing. Women have a lot more choice when it comes to their appearance, men are pretty much stuck with suits and ties (and women, you can keep makeup to a minimum, as far as I'm concerned).

Men have different expectations, some physical, but mostly social. We're expected to be the aggressor, but are often vilified for being so. In fact, it's this lack of clarity that makes life hard for most men. We are just never sure of what is expected of us. Life would be so much easier if everyone was just honest about their feelings.

That said, I think there is far too much focus on sex. Couples can be close and intimate without the need for it. Certainly, it feels great, and has a whole slew of benefits (good for the cardio-vascular, enhances the sense of intimacy, etc.), but a real relationship depends on a whole lot more.

Hm. I seem to be drifting off topic a bit.

Would it be torture to lie with a woman and not have sex? Absolutely not, at least not for me. The voice of experience here.
 {mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 135 (view)
 
Is this torture to a guy?
Posted: 9/26/2007 10:01:17 AM

there is more to life then getting laid.


What she said. It's been 5 years and counting for me, and I'm doing fine. Someone needs to grow up.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Do women find guys seen with other women to be more attractive?
Posted: 8/2/2007 1:23:06 PM
I don't know, maybe it's a perception thing, but I found I got a lot more attention when I was attached than I do when I'm single.

I think it has to do with confidence. A guy who's seeing someone will not be looking around as much; won't be checking people out. This makes him appear more self-confident, which is an attractive trait.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 66 (view)
 
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 8/2/2007 1:02:54 PM
Again, I disagree. Religion is a set of beliefs, and since morality doesn't flow from religion, it cannot flow from beliefs as you suggest. What you're describing is more like an ethical code. Ethics govern behaviour, morality governs ethics.

Your assessment of Law is not wrong, but your interpretation could use some revising. I've said Law is designed to promote the goals of those in power. The "common good" is usually one of those goals because when it isn't the common folk tend to depose those in power. "When is a crime a crime?" It's when the local power says so. Slavery is a good example. Once, it was entirely legal, yet many consdered it immoral. Law and morality are only indirectly related.

Similarly, there is no connection between Moral and Legal issues. The Law is not concerned with morality or even ethics. The Law is only concerned with what is legal. Morality can influence the decision regarding just what is to be considered legal, but once that decision is made, morality is no longer part of the Law's aspect.

The reason why subjects like abortion and cloning are dilemmas is becasue there is no defined ethic. That is, we cannot decide what we should do, because we don't know or disagree on what is moral. That decision has to be made before the Law can be made. Hence the legal dilemma. There is no moral certainty, thus no ethic, and no guidance for the Law.

This pattern does not conflict with my original statement, that morality does not flow from religion, because this evaluation would be made based on many criteria. This could include religion, or exclude it. Either way, the decision would be made, and the law would arise from that decision. As you say, in a predominantly Christian society, you might find that abortion and cloning become illegal. In another society, it might not.

Ethics doesn't address "right" or "wrong." Ethics is a code of conduct. As such, my statement stands as written. I haven't used the terms interchangably, though I will grant that it can be difficult to draw a line between the two. In any case, I have made a concerted effort to show a difference.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Fear and Self-loathing?
Posted: 8/2/2007 11:22:21 AM
Some interesting comments. I've never been one to care what people think of me, and I've never been judgemental of others. Even so, I found my reaction to signing onto this sort of site was what I described in my original post. My rational mind said all the things you have all said, but still my gut reaction was what it was.

I wonder why that is?

Heh. I was about to launch into a long bout of self-analysis, but I caught myself.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Fear and Self-loathing?
Posted: 7/27/2007 6:37:38 AM
I'm curious. In the past there has been a stigma attached to the use of dating services and sites. People who used such services were labeled "desperate" and/or "pathetic."

Does that still exist, or has this evolved into a simple social environment?

I ask, because I was initially reluctant to sign up for fear of being percieved as I've described. However, I've looked around and seen some extremely attractive and/or interesting people on this site. I often find myself wondering, "She's gorgeous, why on earth would she need to resort to a dating site?"

Is that wrong? Is my thinking outdated?

I suspect I know the answer I'll get, I'm asking people that are USING a dating site, after all. Try to be objective and honest, though.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 1280 (view)
 
Jokes, Jokes, Jokes!!!!!!
Posted: 7/26/2007 8:50:51 AM
A young monk arrives at the monestary for his first assignment. He is introduced to the old master, who takes him under his wing and gives him his task.

"My son," says the master, "You first task shall be an easy, but important one. You will go to the library and begin copying the texts the librarian will give you."

The young monk thanksthe master and goes to the library, where he is presented with a daunting pile of books and documents. Seating himself, he begins the task of copying them, all by hand. As he works, however, he begins to realize that the texts he is copying from are themselves copies. Confused, he goes back to the master.

"Master, I was copying the texts as you wished, but I've realized something odd," the young monk says. "I'm copying from copies."

"Of course," replies the old master, "The original documents are stored in thevaults. They're far too fragile and valuable to risk damaging them, so we work from existing copies."

"Of course, master," protests the youth, "but if there has been an error in any prior copy, that error will simply be carried on into the next copy."

The master looks thoughtful, then says, "You make a valid point, my son. You go to the library and continue your work; I will descend into the ancient vaults to examine the original texts."

The young monk returns to his work as the master descends into the vaults.

After some considerable time, the young monk realizes that the master has been gone for a long while, and he grows concerned. Setting aside his copying, he descends into the ancient catacombs and vaults himself.

Passing through the maze of tunnels and corridors, passing the ancient bones and stored documents, he searches for his master. Eventually, he notices a peculiar sound from somewhere deep in the vaults. As he follows the sound, it grows clearer. Rounding a corner, he comes upon the old master, hunched over an ancient tome, wracked by wrenching sobs.

The young monk runs to the old man's side and cries, "Master! What is it? What's wrong?"

The old man looks up at him and replies, "The word.... is CELEBRATE!"
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Shaved pubes and PAIN
Posted: 7/26/2007 8:11:32 AM
I'd have to agree, chemical hair removers are potentially hazardous in that area. I don't generally recommend it. Plucking is a viable option, but can be quite painful until you get used to it, and can cause problems too. Also, if he's especially hairy, you have to figure out where to stop.

Personally, I suggest trimming. Short, but not stubble, and you can feather out to longer hair on the legs if needed so he doesn't look odd in the locker room...
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 7/23/2007 7:58:46 AM
I have to disagree with some of your points.

Morality does not descend from religion. Quite the contrary, religion is shaped by morality. This chicken comes before this egg. Morality is subjective - that is, what we deem to be good or evil, is subject to our own perspective. Religion would appear to be part of that perspective, but we must consider that morality can exist independently of religion. A society comprised entirely of athiests would still have a moral code based on their societal values. Therefore, morality shapes religion; religion does not shape morality.

Laws are a completely different kettle of fish .

Laws are a sytem put in place to protect the interests of those in power. They are only governed by the morality of the society when the common population can affect the interests of those in power. In other words, Law has little to do with morality, Law is about maintaining order. It is worth noting that morals cannot be biased, by definition. Laws can. Morality is not a code of conduct, it is a set of principles that allows the creation of a code of conduct. That code of conduct is part of what we call Ethics. Law, as I say, only comes into proximity of these things, but is not truly connected.

Your example is interesting. Cloning studies do indeed encounter a considerable amount of resistance.

Legally speaking, there is the question of personhood. It's not unlike the abortion issue. Would a clone be a person? From this perspective, the question isn't about morality or ethics, its a simple legal issue.

The moral question is simply, is this the right thing to do? Is it moral? This is the core question on this issue. The reason there is debate is that there are several differing ethical codes examining the question, and each has a different subjective take on what is "right."

The religious ethic (though it depends upon the particular religion) might say that cloning would be against the nature God designed, and is therefore "wrong." The utilitarian ethic might suggest that cloning would be a benefit to the society, and do more good than harm, and is therefore "right." In each case, they would be correct, though they come to opposite answers.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the divided society we have today. It's neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is.
 {Mojo}
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Morality Vs. Ethics
Posted: 7/21/2007 8:57:56 AM
Precisely what I'm getting at.

What's "Good" is subjective. It depends upon one's point of view. The ancient Spartans used to dip newborn infants in lime. Those that survived were stronger, and thus the species grew stronger. Survival of the fittest. They saw that as "good." If that was going on today, we almost invariably would regard it as "evil." In other words, its all about the criteria, as you say.

Science is about discovering objective truths. That which is the same for eveything, always. Philosophy is subjective.
 
Show ALL Forums