|
On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n
I'm afraid you can't read, then.
|
dam that empire twitter dude is legitimately amazing
|
On March 19 2015 00:35 goody153 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 00:31 Comeh wrote:On March 19 2015 00:29 goody153 wrote:
Idk about you guys but we are usually super underpayed and overworked. Even if we complain we can't do anything about it. Then again you probably lose the job if you complain lol Yeah, we definitely have better rights than you guys - but we are still 2 steps behind Europe in most things. How bad are you guys compared to EU ? i mean i'm drooling whenever i hear that in some countries on EU get paid by the govt. when they go to school(sweden i think) rofl while some of the kids here like age 5-10 usually has to walk around the city selling food and stuff just to be able to survive and go to school. In some sad cases they are the most motivated kids and they don't even get to finish highschool sometimes.
americans get 'paid' by the government to go to school too, technically you're just on financial aid. it's far less than what countries like swe gets but it's still enough to cover a large amount of tuition.
technically euros have better rights and benefits but the economy is also far less productive. i think only norway produces more than we do per person, and even then I'm pretty sure that figure is inflated by socially owned oil exports.
I honestly don't even understand how shit gets done there with all the breaks, sabbaticals, hiatuses and whatever else yuros have. I mean it must be really nice but the concept is just so foreign to me.
it also sucks that there's no middleground as I'm sure amongst all first world countries Americans are the most overworked and have the least days off.
On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n
?
just because the contraception has an error margin doesn't mean it isn't effective
|
On March 19 2015 02:12 Sn0_Man wrote:
dam that empire twitter dude is legitimately amazing
certainly the best twitter team in the world
no contest
|
Lalalaland34505 Posts
On March 19 2015 02:05 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 01:56 goody153 wrote:
really lol actually usually why people don't like winter casting cause of his accent
that's new i used to live in singapore, i like malay singaporean accents
What the fuck really?! When?
|
On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then.
So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D
|
On March 19 2015 02:15 andyrau wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 00:35 goody153 wrote:On March 19 2015 00:31 Comeh wrote:On March 19 2015 00:29 goody153 wrote:
Idk about you guys but we are usually super underpayed and overworked. Even if we complain we can't do anything about it. Then again you probably lose the job if you complain lol Yeah, we definitely have better rights than you guys - but we are still 2 steps behind Europe in most things. How bad are you guys compared to EU ? i mean i'm drooling whenever i hear that in some countries on EU get paid by the govt. when they go to school(sweden i think) rofl while some of the kids here like age 5-10 usually has to walk around the city selling food and stuff just to be able to survive and go to school. In some sad cases they are the most motivated kids and they don't even get to finish highschool sometimes. americans get 'paid' by the government to go to school too, technically you're just on financial aid. it's far less than what countries like swe gets but it's still enough to cover a large amount of tuition. technically euros have better rights and benefits but the economy is also far less productive. i think only norway produces more than we do per person, and even then I'm pretty sure that figure is inflated by socially owned oil exports. I honestly don't even understand how shit gets done there with all the breaks, sabbaticals, hiatuses and whatever else yuros have. I mean it must be really nice but the concept is just so foreign to me. it also sucks that there's no middleground as I'm sure amongst all first world countries Americans are the most overworked and have the least days off.
It's because people work much better if you give them time to rest and recuperate instead of grinding them down to the bone. It's like giving a machine routine maintenance: sure, you lose out on some work time in the short term, but you far extend the operating life of the machine overall. Of course, that doesn't matter if you view humans as a means of turning labor into capital and if you can just replace your broken workers with other minimum wage folks.
|
On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D
Yes, it is, because of
and abortion clinics
I'm afraid you might need glasses.
|
On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D
dont leave them in ur wallet noob
|
On March 19 2015 02:19 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D Yes, it is, because of I'm afraid you might need glasses.
Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do.
|
On March 19 2015 02:21 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:19 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D Yes, it is, because of and abortion clinics I'm afraid you might need glasses. Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do.
So were you really criticizing the notion of offering abortions to willing parties? If so, you should have said that earlier. Now I can correct myself and say instead that you are incapable of writing, not reading.
|
On March 19 2015 02:21 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:19 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D Yes, it is, because of and abortion clinics I'm afraid you might need glasses. Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do.
Ok, when it comes to being pregnant and the process of getting pregnant, dilemmas abound. No solution is going to be without flaws, which is why people suggest using all of them.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On March 19 2015 02:15 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:05 Targe wrote:On March 19 2015 01:56 goody153 wrote:
really lol actually usually why people don't like winter casting cause of his accent
that's new i used to live in singapore, i like malay singaporean accents What the fuck really?! When?
until i was like 9 or something?
quite a while ago
fun fact, other than boarding school/uni i havent lived in the uk since i was 2
|
On March 19 2015 02:22 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:21 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:19 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D Yes, it is, because of and abortion clinics I'm afraid you might need glasses. Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do. So were you really criticizing the notion of offering abortions to willing parties? If so, you should have said that earlier. Now I can correct myself and say instead that you are incapable of writing, not reading.
Of course not, not everyone is a backwards gamburger, I'm saying that the solution to handle for about 15-20% of pregnant women shouldn't be: "Oh my you got pregnant, let's rectify that by giving you an abortion really quick. Please just step over there and you'll be rid of your baby for an easy payment of $49.99."
|
On March 19 2015 02:18 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:15 andyrau wrote:On March 19 2015 00:35 goody153 wrote:On March 19 2015 00:31 Comeh wrote:On March 19 2015 00:29 goody153 wrote:
Idk about you guys but we are usually super underpayed and overworked. Even if we complain we can't do anything about it. Then again you probably lose the job if you complain lol Yeah, we definitely have better rights than you guys - but we are still 2 steps behind Europe in most things. How bad are you guys compared to EU ? i mean i'm drooling whenever i hear that in some countries on EU get paid by the govt. when they go to school(sweden i think) rofl while some of the kids here like age 5-10 usually has to walk around the city selling food and stuff just to be able to survive and go to school. In some sad cases they are the most motivated kids and they don't even get to finish highschool sometimes. americans get 'paid' by the government to go to school too, technically you're just on financial aid. it's far less than what countries like swe gets but it's still enough to cover a large amount of tuition. technically euros have better rights and benefits but the economy is also far less productive. i think only norway produces more than we do per person, and even then I'm pretty sure that figure is inflated by socially owned oil exports. I honestly don't even understand how shit gets done there with all the breaks, sabbaticals, hiatuses and whatever else yuros have. I mean it must be really nice but the concept is just so foreign to me. it also sucks that there's no middleground as I'm sure amongst all first world countries Americans are the most overworked and have the least days off. It's because people work much better if you give them time to rest and recuperate instead of grinding them down to the bone. It's like giving a machine routine maintenance: sure, you lose out on some work time in the short term, but you far extend the operating life of the machine overall. Of course, that doesn't matter if you view humans as a means of turning labor into capital and if you can just replace your broken workers with other minimum wage folks.
that's the argument but it's impossible to say whether it's right or not
it ultimately comes down to a divergence in culture and I think weber would have a lot to say about this
|
SoCal8933 Posts
On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D
there are other ways of preventing pregnancy too, you know.
in either regard, contraceptives result in fewer pregnancies than not using contraceptives which is what I was saying originally. its a fact that babies cost money and if you're already poor and can barely keep yourself, adding an extra mouth is not beneficial.
you're not going to eliminate unwanted pregnancy in people suffering below the poverty line but if you can reduce it, it's a win.
|
On March 19 2015 02:27 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:22 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:21 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:19 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D Yes, it is, because of and abortion clinics I'm afraid you might need glasses. Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do. So were you really criticizing the notion of offering abortions to willing parties? If so, you should have said that earlier. Now I can correct myself and say instead that you are incapable of writing, not reading. Of course not, not everyone is a backwards gamburger, I'm saying that the solution to handle for about 15-20% of pregnant women shouldn't be: "Oh my you got pregnant, let's rectify that by giving you an abortion really quick. Please just step over there and you'll be rid of your baby for an easy payment of $49.99."
I'm so lost by you. Essentially all you've said is that there is no perfect solution. Something we all know but it feels like you feel like you're enlightening us?
|
I think Dismiss might be trolling again, but its unclear. Poe's Law is stronk.
|
i'm tuna and im going craaaaaaaazy idfajdfyi im tuna!!!
i am the tuna i need a theme song i am the tuna i am the tuna iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii tunaaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
On March 19 2015 02:27 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 02:22 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:21 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:19 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:18 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:12 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 02:06 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 02:00 Acritter wrote:On March 19 2015 01:52 dismiss wrote:On March 19 2015 01:44 Acritter wrote:
The dilemma here is that it is possible for individuals to act in such a way that not only harms themselves but also creates another individual which has his or her own independent set of moral deserts. We would prefer to see actors bear the consequences of their own foolishness, but at the same time have moral responsibility towards those others who stand to suffer from the poor decisions of their progenitors. Resolving this issue on the one hand creates moral hazard on the part of poor parents, and on the other stands to cause incredible harm to actors who are by definition innocent.
As noted above, one potential solution to the dilemma would be to remove the choice from the parents, which has distressing practical considerations given the propensity of such a system to facilitate genocide. Another possible solution would be to remove the child from the parents, but the current systems for handling said children tend to be harmful as well. The solution which has been in practice for quite some time and appears most reasonable is to provide and encourage use of birth control for unwilling parents. This might not entirely remove issues of unsuitable parenthood, but it definitely suppresses them.
tl;dr let's just give them condoms and abortion clinics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D Glad to see you agree with me. I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n I'm afraid you can't read, then. So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D Yes, it is, because of and abortion clinics I'm afraid you might need glasses. Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do. So were you really criticizing the notion of offering abortions to willing parties? If so, you should have said that earlier. Now I can correct myself and say instead that you are incapable of writing, not reading. Of course not, not everyone is a backwards gamburger, I'm saying that the solution to handle for about 15-20% of pregnant women shouldn't be: "Oh my you got pregnant, let's rectify that by giving you an abortion really quick. Please just step over there and you'll be rid of your baby for an easy payment of $49.99."
so instead of abortions you're saying that it's ok to bring this kid into a world where he/she is going to bounce around within the confines of the foster child system, or grow up poor, contribute minimal to society, eek off social welfare, and more likely than not perpetuate this cycle?
and you're not even pointing out anything of significance, you point out a problem which everyone knows is a flawed process, but fail to give a solution.
like yes we know abortions are morally questionable but when contraceptives fail, then you only have one ugly solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
