By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Should probability invalidate responsibility?

 

Should probability invalidate accountability?

Yes 8 23.53%
 
No 26 76.47%
 
Total:34
SvennoJ said:
Ponyless said:
 

If you're fucking a girl and the condom breaks, even though there was only a 1 percent chance of it breaking, should you still be held accountable for the child if the woman chooses not to get an abortion? That was his point.

Well that one is easy. It's your child, end of story. If one chooses not to have an abortion, the other is still responsible for the life of the child.

I would disagree ... the very presence of a condom would suggest that pregnancy was not the intended goal of the sexual encounter. It would be obvious to anyone that in such a situation the pregnancy was an accident.

An abortion should be conducted at the discretion of the woman. It is her body, and the ultimate decision to abort should be in her hands in the same way that the decision to undergo any medical procedure should be up to the individual (assuming they are competent to make such decisions).

The man, however, should not be legally required to care for the child. He can choose to if he wishes, but no legal obligation should exist. After all, it is the woman's decision to have a child, and it should be the man's decision to either support the child or to not support it.

In matters of custody, it would depend on which parent is assuming the role of the child's guardian. Either they both will, one parent will, or neither parent will support the child.

This seems like the most logical/fair approach to this issue. Both parties would have to consent to raising the child as opposed to the double standard we currently have where women hold all the power. Unfortunately, the current law is heavily slanted in favor of women:

A woman can:

1. Have the child and raise it with the father

2. Have the child and collect child support from the father if he decides not to stay with the mother and child

3. Have the full support of family courts to take full custody of the child and keep him/her from the father at any moment she pleases to (even if the father sticks around)

4. Have an abortion at virtually any moment and end the pregnancy; washing her hands of the whole situation

5. Offer the child for adoption; also washing her hands of the whole thing

 

A man can:

1. Watch helplessly as the mom chooses one of the options listed above.

 

Speaking as a man, I would gladly take the options available to women. Options = power, and a lack of choices = powerlessness.



Around the Network
DarthVolod said:
SvennoJ said:
Ponyless said:
 

If you're fucking a girl and the condom breaks, even though there was only a 1 percent chance of it breaking, should you still be held accountable for the child if the woman chooses not to get an abortion? That was his point.

Well that one is easy. It's your child, end of story. If one chooses not to have an abortion, the other is still responsible for the life of the child.

I would disagree ... the very presence of a condom would suggest that pregnancy was not the intended goal of the sexual encounter. It would be obvious to anyone that in such a situation the pregnancy was an accident.

An abortion should be conducted at the discretion of the woman. It is her body, and the ultimate decision to abort should be in her hands in the same way that the decision to undergo any medical procedure should be up to the individual (assuming they are competent to make such decisions).

 

 

at bolded that is scientifically and biologically inaccurate.

making the whole premise of your argument false.



 

DarthVolod said:

I would disagree ... the very presence of a condom would suggest that pregnancy was not the intended goal of the sexual encounter. It would be obvious to anyone that in such a situation the pregnancy was an accident.

An abortion should be conducted at the discretion of the woman. It is her body, and the ultimate decision to abort should be in her hands in the same way that the decision to undergo any medical procedure should be up to the individual (assuming they are competent to make such decisions).

The man, however, should not be legally required to care for the child. He can choose to if he wishes, but no legal obligation should exist. After all, it is the woman's decision to have a child, and it should be the man's decision to either support the child or to not support it.

In matters of custody, it would depend on which parent is assuming the role of the child's guardian. Either they both will, one parent will, or neither parent will support the child.

This seems like the most logical/fair approach to this issue. Both parties would have to consent to raising the child as opposed to the double standard we currently have where women hold all the power. Unfortunately, the current law is heavily slanted in favor of women:

A woman can:

1. Have the child and raise it with the father

2. Have the child and collect child support from the father if he decides not to stay with the mother and child

3. Have the full support of family courts to take full custody of the child and keep him/her from the father at any moment she pleases to (even if the father sticks around)

4. Have an abortion at virtually any moment and end the pregnancy; washing her hands of the whole situation

5. Offer the child for adoption; also washing her hands of the whole thing

 

A man can:

1. Watch helplessly as the mom chooses one of the options listed above.

 

Speaking as a man, I would gladly take the options available to women. Options = power, and a lack of choices = powerlessness.

 

As long as consentual sex was involved both partners are responsible for the outcome, whether pregnancy was intented or not.

I agree that the women should have the final say when abortion comes up. I worded it wrong, I didn't mean the man had the option to force the women to carry the child to labour. But if she chooses not to, the man is still the legal father with full responsibility, unless both parties decide that he gives up custody.

I guess you haven't seen your wife go through a difficult pregnancy and trying to recover from a botched C-section if you say you like the options available to women. It's fine they have all the power when it comes to child birth.



Working in a food industry, your comparison is poor.

The food industry has a whole different set of standards (they are far higher) to follow compared to an electronics one, because food is consumed by humans and thus has the potential to cause harm to a consumer if not prepared correctly.



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Brutalyst said:
Working in a food industry, your comparison is poor.

The food industry has a whole different set of standards (they are far higher) to follow compared to an electronics one, because food is consumed by humans and thus has the potential to cause harm to a consumer if not prepared correctly.


This has nothing to do with electronics.



Around the Network
Jay520 said:
Brutalyst said:
Working in a food industry, your comparison is poor.

The food industry has a whole different set of standards (they are far higher) to follow compared to an electronics one, because food is consumed by humans and thus has the potential to cause harm to a consumer if not prepared correctly.


This has nothing to do with electronics.

 

If not trying to make a thinly veiled thread comparing failure rates from one industry to the game console one (in a primarily gaming forum, which has seen lots of posts about the failure rate of new consoles, coincidentally also being 1%) then sorry I made that assumption, but that leads me to a different question, what was the point of this thread at all? as the answer is obvious and hardly needed asking.



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Jay520 said:

Suppose a bakery is about to close for the night, but there is one customer remaining. This customer wants a cake. The shop has 100 cakes in stock, but one of the cakes is rotten and can cause illness. The baker has closely examined each cake and has found that it's impossible to determine which cake is rotten. He determines that it's extremely unlikely that he will sell the rotten cake, so he decides to sell one cake to the customer.

Unfortunately, the man unknowingly sells the rotten cake and the customer gets very ill. Should the baker not be held (at least partially) accountable for the man's sickness? The baker says he didn't want to sell the rotten cake, and that it was extremely unlikely that it would be sold (only 1%). Therefore, he says, he should not be held accountable for what happens to the customer. Is the baker right?

Now, a more general question: does probability invalidate accountability? In other words, should a person's accountability of certain consequences be diminished solely because it was unlikely that the consequences would develop?

Note: the baker did not tell the customer that he had a rotten cake. Though he also didn't tell the customer that he didn't have a rotten cake.


Easy solution.

Dude I have 100 cakes but 1 is fucked up I have no idea which one tho. If you are unlucky and you get the rotten one.... you will get sick. If you demand a cake you can buy It but I will NOT guarantee that you wont get the fucked up one. You decide.


If the baker didn't say anything then he should pay and should lose his job. Simple as that. The thing is the baker will sell every cake so in the end 1 person will get the rotten one for sure  thats the problem.



I think the analogy is kinda poor, since the chick and dude both know failure rates of condoms, while the guy getting the cake doesn't know the chance of getting a rotten one.

Morale of the story: if the condom breaks, you're fucked.



d2wi said:

Morale of the story: if the condom breaks, you're fucked.


Wouldnt the morale of that story be you've been fucked either way? :p



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Brutalyst said:
d2wi said:

Morale of the story: if the condom breaks, you're fucked.


Wouldnt the morale of that story be you've been fucked either way? :p


that's the joke ^_^