On the rights of unwilling fathers:

[BobCox2]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

I'm male and heterosexual.

i said this won't likely happen to me because it's very likely that whoever i will marry will be someone who is NOT going to get killed because of giving birth... (not saying i will check the female for this probability, but saying that this is just unlikely and will never happen in a normal life!)

now if that ever happened i would NOT make a choice between the two, i would find the next persons legitimate enough to choose and let consensus/the person affected choose (the mother herself, relatives, ...) or i would hope that things would work out and delay the choice until it's too late to make a choice

so all in all the probability of it ever coming to me making that kind of choice is extremely low, now you understand ?

now respond, plz mr. bobcox and confirm that you would not just throw the assumption of me being a female homosexual at me and leave it there

I should, but no what I was pointing out is that as a guy (in the USA) it's not our choice and it can happen, even if you use a condom though that does make it less likely. Sex happens even out of wedlock, people that say they would never often do, etc.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Given you clearly view women as little more than incubators I have difficulty believing this is a real assessment of your values, though it may be one you honestly believe.

Also - given that if you killed yourself and donated all your organs you could save the lives of half a dozen people or more, why are you still here if the life of even one other person is of more value than your own?

i'm not trying to defend him, but seriously:

him believing in these values being real MAKES them real, it's just logical. you make your values by believing them to be right for you

also, one excuse for him would be if he believes that he will be of more use to humanity much more if he stays alive for at least another half of a century...
besides, it really looks like he only means extreme situation in which you have to make a "do or die" (or "die or die") decision... being nitpicky on his language is ok, as long as it's not too aggressive


@bobcox: aight, probably true, and i've read most condoms have 95% success rate (no experience with that, haha) BTW: what kinda expression is "never often", lolz

 

[PFSS]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

i'm not trying to defend him, but seriously:

him believing in these values being real MAKES them real, it's just logical. you make your values by believing them to be right for you

For an extreme case - many pedophiles believe that they are not harming the child, that the child is willing and able to consent and that what they are doing is beneficial to the child. This does not make it true.

Hedge is saying that he values the lives of women above the lives of men, but at the same time the way he talks indicates he views women as baby-machines rather than as people, with their value being their reproductive capacity. Essentially viewing women as a means to an end is not compatible with holding them to have greater value as humans.

besides, it really looks like he only means extreme situation in which you have to make a "do or die" (or "die or die") decision... being nitpicky on his language is ok, as long as it's not too aggressive

Those other people very likely will die without his organs.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

again, i'm not of hege's opinion here, but i have to respond (can't-resist-temptation-to respond to PFSS)

For an extreme case - many pedophiles believe that they are not harming the child, that the child is willing and able to consent and that what they are doing is beneficial to the child. This does not make it true.

and no one said anything about making values true, we only talked about making values real in the sense that these are REALly his values, whether they be true and good values or not...

Hedge

haha, slip-up

Hedge is saying that he values the lives of women above the lives of men, but at the same time the way he talks indicates he views women as baby-machines rather than as people, with their value being their reproductive capacity. Essentially viewing women as a means to an end is not compatible with holding them to have greater value as humans.

and that is the place where i disagree with Hege... although i don't believe he really thinks women are baby-machines (his posts probably just came across wrong), i do believe that he values women above men and i don't see the sense in that (seriously, why??)

Those other people very likely will die without his organs.

probably, and i don't believe he really means that he would do anything to save other people just because he ranks himself lowest...
i believe it was just an outburst indicating what he would choose if a doctor in a hospital approaches him and says: "one has to die, choose wisely, now, no escape!"

 

[stillman]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

It's as simple as this:

Here is why a woman is more valuable than an infant:

If you kill a child, you are killing ONE person (let's say the child is male).
If you kill a woman, you are killing one person plus all the potential humans that woman could have made [given birth to] in her life (let's say about 10 just for example). So that's ELEVEN potential humans you killed by killing the woman.

So which is worse, killing ONE boy, or killing ELEVEN boys and a woman? Hege would rather kill eleven.

Hege would make an aweful, aweful superhero.

There. See? See how easy that is?

Now since Hege is sometimes coming off as a science advocate, I can give an even better reason here. Let's look at entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder in the universe. To build something highly structured, like a human, it requires huge investment of energy which increases the entropy of the universe. A child requires less energy than an adult woman. So a child has only eaten for a few days in its life and added a tiny X to entropy. It only built X proteins. A woman has eaten for decades, and has added X times 20,000 entropy to the universe. The woman is way more structured. WAY more energy has been invested in that woman compared to the child.

When one kills a child, one removes less than a year of work and hard energy investment. When one kills a woman, one removes a vast amount of energy that was invested in that woman.

Metaphore: Think of it as shooting down a pilot (adult). That jet costs someone a million dollars, the training for the pilot costs a wad of cash too. This is like shooting down a woman--all that education (teachers had to be paid to teach the woman, etc) is wasted. Now picture shooting down a little paper airplain (child). Who cares? Don't you see a paper airplane is tiny investment compared to the million dollar jet? Killing the child erases...zero dollars investment of education.

I can go on, but what's the point?

 

[WildBerry]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

When one kills a child, one removes less than a year of work and hard energy investment. When one kills a woman, one removes a vast amount of energy that was invested in that woman.

Do notice, if you start to count joules, that the expected rate of energy returned might be higher for the child. Her productive days aren't half done or behind her yet.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

A mother can have more children but a child can't have more mothers, easy choice.

Dude, if he just called you a lesbian, that means you get to make out with other lesbians! As you know from TV, they are all hot and randy all the time!! Lucky you. :thumbsup:

Plus they love letting men watch or even join in!

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Here is why a woman is more valuable than an infant:

If you kill a child, you are killing ONE person (let's say the child is male).
If you kill a woman, you are killing one person plus all the potential humans that woman could have made [given birth to] in her life (let's say about 10 just for example). So that's ELEVEN potential humans you killed by killing the woman.

So killing a man then is by far worse, because a man's sperm could potentially create millions of potential humans? Oh, ok.

first virile men
second viable, receptive wombs
third presexual juves
last old people, gays, lesbians, sterile people, etc

 

[krischan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

The number of potential humans is limited by the amount of wombs. You just need one man to impregnate a million women if it's made with modern scientific methods. But who knows, maybe we have artificial wombs soon and we won't need women anymore as well, just a fridge with spermiums and egg cells. Which brings us to the question why humans should be produced at all, leading directly to the question what is life and the whole universe about then :azn:

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

ARSEHOLES, the lot of ye!

how can you rationalise humans with your half-assed measurements (let alone accurate measurements, that would make you real monsters!)??


@stillman: don't even start! having 7 billion (and growing huge) investments of energy which all contribute immensely to the entropy of the universe which then has to be balanced out by the exact opposite is NOT something we want to imagine or get into. Look at humans like your a person, a humane one. Don't count them, don't get all statistical on whatever might concern making ANY human more valuable than ANY OTHER human. We've had that kinda thing more than half a century ago and we've had our fill of it for at least another two lifetimes. (that goes for you too, hege, ya hear me?!)

EDIT: and that goes for krischan too! -.-

@Anyee/dondrei: aww, sic! no comments... oh, wait

 

[sevencreature]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

my girls feel the same way. baby comes before me and them. our babies are our most precious part of our lives. they are our world. we'd both choose baby other each other and ourselves.

Well, glad to hear that, how many of those girls and babies do you actually have, by the way? :crazyeyes: Planning to spawn some generation ship or something? :wink:

Hm, you have some issues with young females? :scratchchin:

Suggestion - print this on some banner and march in front of Abortion clinic (also get some friend with camera to tape the event):

such a woman, would never be my wife, i don't marry trash/F-I-L-T-H.

that "lump of cells" u speak of, without question, has more value than such a woman u speak of.

and be glad i don't have legal power, as every murderer of innocent babies would either be executed or getting to know terrorists in gitmo bay or even better a russian gulag, as should be baby murderers punished and punished equally to the crime they commited murder...and not only murder but murder of the most innocent, a baby, infanticide is truly *IN*-human.

Could be quite interesting :thumbup:

lAmebAdger: :crazyeyes:

 

[krischan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

EDIT: and that goes for krischan too! -.-

I admit that I used the term womb like that purposely, but in the course of what I wrote it should have become obvious that my point was that such a cold reasoning leads into a dead end :azn:

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

@sevencreature: :crazyeyes:: that's what i feel....

@krischan: apologies, then.

it was kinda subtle, though, i might add in my defense (not really, but w/e)

also, i used to ask myself alot, what life is and what the universe was, dunno if that helped any..

 

[BobCox2]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

It's 42 if that helps any.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

it's 23, dude... everything in the universe can be reduced to 23, Jim Carrey said so!

 

[BobCox2]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Google it, Feeling lucky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything#Answer_to_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

nah... i don't feel like it today

if you do, you might wanna check out the film: "the number 23" and laugh your *** off about it.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

all life is precious to me. if people got the impression that i feel all life is not precious, they need to work on their impressions.

as a human, i DO value certain life over other life. i'm not advocating the genocide of a race of people, that was hitler and is amadinjad. if anyone seen the movie, I Robot, it explains this well. a robot-machine doesn't have emotions-feelings. to it, a human is a human. i am not a machine-robot, and nor do i want to be one. i am proud that i give a human child more value than and adult human. i am proud that i give a female human more value than a male human. i am proud to be a human. i am proud that i don't see life as numbers or statistics. i am proud that i see a baby as a baby. a female as a female. i am proud that i DO give different values to different types of humans not in terms of skin color or "race" but age and gender.

females are no more or no less "baby machines" than males. last time i checked, it took BOTH a half dna strand from the male and half a dna strand from a female to make a baby. a human is 46 chromosomes. 23 of those chromosomes come from the father (male) and 23 come from the mother (female). 2 of those 23 chromosomes are the sex chromosomes. males have x and y sex chromosomes. females have x and x sex chromosomes. together those 23 chromosomes make 46 chromosomes. a new human being. a baby. all life is a "baby machine". that's the purpose of life. continuance. males are "baby machines". females are "baby machines". if people got the impression that i thought only females as of being "baby machines", they need to work on their impressions because i have NEVER used the compound term "baby machine". typing that i did, is liable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the way,

it is now known that the sex chromosomes actually have very very little to do with all the charactistics of sex (gender). it is now understood that the levels of testosterone and estrogen nearly play the entire role of our sex (gender) characteristics. steroid use has well documented this. give a female steroids (extra testosterone) and she develops a deep voice, facial hair (whiskers), agression/violence, and probably more "man" or "masculine" stuff. give a male steroids (extra testosterone) and his testicles shrink, and other "femininization" occurs. a male and female has both testosterone and estrogen. but the male has more testosorogen than estrogen and the female has more estrogen than testosterone. however those testosterone and estrogen levels have to stay within certain limits. too much testorogen actually doesn't make a man into a "super" man, it makes a man into a "woman". in the past, scientists thought that every or nearly every sex (gender) characteristic was determined by the xy and xx sex chromosomes in a male or female respectively. this was incorrect.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

give a male steroids (extra testosterone) and his testicles shrink, and other "femininization" occurs.

slip-up! i'm sure you meant to say estrogen instead of testosterone
(also, your biology is inaccurate enough to bother a biologist into half an hour of getting vexed..., agreeing generally with your concepts, but feeling a bit upset about the expressions you like to use with inexactness)

last time i checked, it took BOTH a half dna strand from the male and half a dna strand from a female to make a baby.

and the nutrition from the female body which is going to affect his body development and, thus, later confidence issues or personality development by a bit... the nutrition coming from what the female eats/drinks, which the man may or may not have gotten her through his job and, therefore, his personality, on which his boss had a profound effect, on whom the boss' parents had a lot of influence on, on which... bla bla bla... on which a dog peed and therefore a tree grew, from which the apples were passed on to Mr. X which affected his health, which enabled him to go to school and teach Mrs. Y about ... BLA
:crazyeyes:

all life is a "baby machine". that's the purpose of life.

the biological definition of life is a bit different... it includes more than just narrowing "life" down to procreation, look it up!
also, who are you to narrow down life's "purpose"?? everyone can choose their own purpose for the thing that they call "life", your version SUX :whistling: (just my opinion, no, it sucks, seriously... procreation=life's purpose??, who likes that? i choose life's purpose to be something i like )

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

slip-up! i'm sure you meant to say estrogen instead of testosterone
(also, your biology is inaccurate enough to bother a biologist into half an hour of getting vexed..., agreeing generally with your concepts, but feeling a bit upset about the expressions you like to use with inexactness)



and the nutrition from the female body which is going to affect his body development and, thus, later confidence issues or personality development by a bit... the nutrition coming from what the female eats/drinks, which the man may or may not have gotten her through his job and, therefore, his personality, on which his boss had a profound effect, on whom the boss' parents had a lot of influence on, on which... bla bla bla... on which a dog peed and therefore a tree grew, from which the apples were passed on to Mr. X which affected his health, which enabled him to go to school and teach Mrs. Y about ... BLA
:crazyeyes:



the biological definition of life is a bit different... it includes more than just narrowing "life" down to procreation, look it up!
also, who are you to narrow down life's "purpose"?? everyone can choose their own purpose for the thing that they call "life", your version SUX :whistling: (just my opinion, no, it sucks, seriously... procreation=life's purpose??, who likes that? i choose life's purpose to be something i like )

i did NOT mess up. it IS steroids (extra *TESTOSTERONE*) that *SHRINKS* your testicles. "steroids will give you big biceps to impress a girl with, but when she takes a look down your pants, she will be very displeased" -unknown. i could not say it better so i used this unknown person's quote.

if u say my biology is wrong, u need to name the biology of mine that is wrong before your comment nets my attention.

as to the "purpose of life"

we are talking about two different things:

you are talking about your own ideas of life as a conscious self-aware human being.

i am talking about the REAL purpose of life underneath people's superfluruous ideas of life, the DNA/GENES and their continuance/survival.