Saturday, August 20, 2005

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 5

From the American Liberty Archives h/t Mike Schneider

I had written:

I don't see how you can claim that a man who did NOT seek to become a father - is free-riding off his kid.

Kennedy responded with:

He is if the kid pays for the ride.

My response to Kennedy:

At what point is the kid "paying" for the ride?
As far as I can tell - the nature of children is such that they do not pay for much of anything - in the sense that the bills and costs associated with child-rearing are generally only paid by the parents raising them - until such a time
as the child is capable of providing for him/herself at which point - they are only doing what every
rational human being should do as a functioning human being - ie - provide for themselves and
not be a burden to others.


I had written:

Especially if he does not seek to excercise parental rights and does not want the warm-and-fuzzies associated with being a daddy and instead, is cut out of the equation all-together by a vindictive girlfriend/spouse/one-night stander, or if he cuts himself out of the equation?

Kennedy says:

If he is prevented from supporting the child, that of cours is not his fault, but otherwise he's free riding on his child if the child pays.

I ask Kennedy:

What is the child paying exactly and to who?


Kennedy had suggested

Just as the woman who aborts the child or abandons it is free riding on it.

My response:

That is absolutley the most strange arguement I have seen. I believe you must mean something quite different from "free-riding" - than what you are attempt to show as it's meaning in this discussion. Perhaps its just a vocab issue.

Kennedy says:

in these cases the child gets to pay for choices it was not party to and could not defend itself form (sic)

I ask this question

WHAT CHILD???

If anything the 'free-rider' in this equation is the offspring from it's embroyonic start - to the college tuition finish, should it carry on that far.

What does the fetus contribute to it's mother?
Or father for that matter?


Back to my original post. I had stated:

"What VALUE is he getting out of the experience of the kid being in this world that he is directly benefiting from in this instance?"

Kennedy asserts:

The value he recieved was sexual pleasure. If the kid pays for it,
that's a reprehensible form a free riding.

At the moment that sexual pleasure was had - the embryo didnt even exist. I don't understand your rationale on any of this. I'm sorry.

MWW


I also thought to add a little later on...

What of the man who impregnates a woman and then a few days later dies in a horrible flaming bus crash?

Is the Dead man still "free-riding" from the grave on Jr?


(Editorial: Oddly (or not, depending on how you look at it.. John T Kennedy, Fearless Logician and Dedicated Defender of Liberty and advocate of reason, owner/editor of "No Treason", never bothered to answer these questions... he did find time to respond to other posts from other people... but he never did get around to dealing with these questions)



0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home