- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
Debate Android Raptor about abortion again
- Thread starter Android raptor
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2024
gang weeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
Problem with dictatorship (or monarchy or whatever you want to call it) is that having a single individual as your point of failure is too fragile and also leaves way too much room for moral hazard.
The first point, fragility, means that sooner or later, you'll have a bad king. Rome had good emperors and then it had guys like Nero. Looking at history, there doesn't appear to be any reliable way at all to insulate against the inevitability of a bad ruler.
The second point, moral hazard, is what I would say is the even bigger problem, namely that if you give one person all the power, it is way too easy for that person to be corrupt and abusive with it. Why bother ruling fairly and justly if there are no checks or balances, no consequences for ruling badly? People always respond to incentives, no one is above them, ever. A total dictatorship cannot help but set up the incentives for the dictator to rule selfishly.
I think it would be better to pursue some kind of limited franchise system. If you look at Christian churches, often the structure is that priests and other clergy hold all the power as a class, but no single clergyman gets to be a king that has absolute power over all the others. Even the Catholic Church, which is currently suffering under a bad pope, at least has the corrective mechanism that they can pick a better pope next time.
If we look back to the good ol' Founding Fathers, they obviously stood against monarchy, but also seemed to understand quite well that total mass democracy would also go badly, given that they initially only let white male landowners vote. We'd probably want the qualifications to be a bit different in the 21st century, but it seems likely that a lot of degeneracy and nonsense could be easily eliminated if people had to earn the vote as a privilege instead of just letting every random useless person count the same as those who are virtuous.
Oh well, cat's been out of the bag for a while now, probably no putting it back until well after we're all dead and gone.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
A philosopher-king of a Christian theocracy would first and foremost be subject to the teachings of Jesus Christ, which were very clear, that makes it very difficult to stray too far from.
Also, the concept of such a king bakes in other fail-safes. For example, the king is supposed to live a meager life as this form of kingship is considered a service which requires sacrifice for the greater good, weeding out greed as a possible motivation. They're also basically raised for the job which they'd be eligible for at 50, giving lots of time for a council to spot red flags prior to his ascendency.
So being Biblically constrained, personally demotivated, well-educated, and well-tested practically ensures that you're getting a fine king. I don't think this was in Platos' concept, but I'd include the death penalty for the slightest indiscretion in his office, as well as a mandatory retirement at 70.
I think the above should assuage such concerns insofar as is possible, in fact such a setup is so idealistic in nature that its impractical nature all but guarantees it could never be tried. That's not even touching on the complicated logistics of such a feat were it attempted. But if it were successfully implemented ot should work.
The problem is with the selective process itself, you shouldn't have to hope you pick better next time. What happens with leaders normally is you're essentially picking wild fruits by eyeballing them and hoping there's nothing wrong with them, then biting into your apple only to find a worm. But if you have a small orchard and watch it 24/7, applying pesticides, you will greatly diminish the odds of that happening.
That's a much more realistic option, and a good enough compromise.
Outside of extraordinary circumstances, certainly.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2024
Abortions bad because the toxic sewer may bring it back to life as a giant monster!
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
The NY Times would not let my comment through about how sonny boy should never have taken up with an unemployed single mother in the first place. I also noted he should get a paternity test, due to the unspecified medical issues the letter claimed made him being infertile likely and since it close to a metaphysical certainty she is a 304 and his wick is not the only one dipped in her wax in the recent past (though I left off the last bit).
The NY Times would also not let a second comment through about how it is fine if she wants to keep the kid and he doesn't, as long as she waives in perpetuity any claim to child support. (This in response to a screechy rant from a feminist. I know she was feminist because she declared it in her response to the article.)
NY Times is no fun.
The NY Times would also not let a second comment through about how it is fine if she wants to keep the kid and he doesn't, as long as she waives in perpetuity any claim to child support. (This in response to a screechy rant from a feminist. I know she was feminist because she declared it in her response to the article.)
NY Times is no fun.
My Son’s Ex-Girlfriend Wants to Keep Her Pregnancy. Is That Unfair to Him?
I’ve always supported a woman’s right to choose, not least because legal access to abortion once saved me from an untenable situation. I also believe that if a woman chooses to abort, her wish should supersede any opposition to it by the father. The physical, practical and emotional effects on a woman obliged to carry a child to term (and to care for it afterward) are, in my view, far more significant than they are for the father.
But what about the reverse? What about a case in which the father (in this case, my son) is adamantly opposed to having a child, but the woman (his ex-girlfriend) wants to keep the pregnancy? While it’s not relevant to the moral question, the pregnancy is shockingly unexpected given a medical issue of the father’s. And the couple’s relationship has almost no chance of success, even without a pregnancy. Given that the woman has neither a willing partner nor a job and is already responsible for a child from a previous relationship, her decision to continue with the pregnancy is viewed by most in her circle as reckless and certain to risk her already precarious mental health. Here, her right to choose to carry the child will have a profound impact on three (soon to be four) people and is likely to be very difficult for all.
Is it right to force someone to be a parent, even if in name only? Many people, me included, would say no if that person is a woman. Recent events have shown how fraught this issue is. And yet a man who does not wish to be, has never wanted to be and was told that his chances of ever being a parent were nil can find himself in a situation where his opposition carries no weight. While it’s evident that he will have financial obligations, what might his moral responsibility be? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
A majority of Americans believe that when people learn they’re pregnant, they should have the right to choose whether to carry the fetus to term. Many philosophers would say that this right is grounded in, among other things, the value of bodily autonomy. But it can be a mistake to do something we have the right to do. We have the right, say, to spew hateful messages on the web — nobody should be able to stop us — but we would fairly earn reproach for doing so. It can, in short, be wrong to exercise a right.
Would it be wrong for this woman — putting aside your son’s involvement, for the moment — to have a second child? I don’t know enough to say; she could have moral objections to abortion, which would naturally supersede other considerations, though I assume you would have said so were this the case. What I can well believe is that it would be unwise for her to do so.
What happens when we take the views of the biological father into account? Often, an unwilling biological father was aware of the possibility of having a baby and may have behaved recklessly, although both women and men can fall victim to birth-control sabotage, a form of what has been called “reproductive coercion.” Yet your son apparently thought he was infertile and acted responsibly given the medical advice he had received. (In light of his medical situation, he would, if this child is born, have reason to seek a paternity test.)
Paternity has financial consequences. The law will expect a noncustodial parent to pay some amount of child support. But it can have other consequences too. Among the moral intricacies of abortion is that a mother who is forced to carry a pregnancy to term will, in the usual course of things, cherish the child that results. She can coherently wish that she had been allowed to terminate the pregnancy without wishing that this particular child did not exist. In this way, your son may feel that the child should not be born and that if the child is born, he should play a role in its life. His ex would have effectively imposed on him not just legal paternity but actual parenting.
So yes, it may be unfair to encumber your son with the legal entailments — and perhaps the emotional ones — of paternity. But none of this deprives the woman of the right to do so.
Source : https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/12/magazine/pregnancy-abortion-fairness-ethics.html
(+)
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
If the woman wants to keep the pregnancy that's the end of that. It's her body and health that's on the line, therefore she gets to decide what happens to her pregnancy.
Dude needs to put on his big girl panties and suck it up. Forced abortion is wrong just like forced pregnancy is wrong.
Plus it's not hard to avoid paying child support, especially if you give up all parental rights to the kid.
Dude needs to put on his big girl panties and suck it up. Forced abortion is wrong just like forced pregnancy is wrong.
Plus it's not hard to avoid paying child support, especially if you give up all parental rights to the kid.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
Abortion is not only evil because of infanticidal whores, which is what naturally comes to mind, but because of evil men who coerce otherwise good mothers into killing their babies, which is even more sad and despicable. It's especially common among the wealthy (it was recently revealed that the Japanese voice actor for Yamcha turned out to have made a girl he impregnated get one), but there's plenty of scumbags between every class.
You'd think feminists who allegedly care about women would want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" like they pretended to in the 90's, but nope. They don't care about women, they care about killing babies.
You'd think feminists who allegedly care about women would want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" like they pretended to in the 90's, but nope. They don't care about women, they care about killing babies.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Feminists are actually very much against forced abortion and any form of reproductive coercion, but you wouldn't know what feminists believe if it fucked you in the ass and impregnated you
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
Just a reminder that AR is a buck-broken fujoshit that cries about religion and homo priests molesting kids but will turn a blind eye when the LGBTQMAP clowns do it.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
Then they wouldn't be for no questions asked 24/7 free abortion for any or no reason for everyone, including minors.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Wow almost like feminists are against barriers to abortion and forcing children to give birth! Making abortion easily accessible to everyone seeking it doesn't mean being ok with forced abortion. There's a reason many clinics separate the patient from anyone she came with, and will send her home still pregnant if workers learn she's being pressured to have an abortion by someone else.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
Unregulated abortion access is ripe for abuse, but you feminists do not care, you want those sweet, sweet baby corpses.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Forcing children to give birth is how you get baby corpses, actually
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
Good thing nobody does that
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Unfortunately many parts of the world do, including several US states.
Remember the 13 year old rape victim you defended being forced to give birth?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
0 states do.
I don't because I didn't. I leave it up to the doctors to determine if infanticide is medically necessary to save the life of the mother in all cases.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
I want to live in whatever alternate universe you do
Embryos aren't infants btw. Infanticide is what you get when unwanted pregnancies can't be aborted as embryos though. That's the old fashioned, biblically approved way of doing it!