Pregnant?!

Suck On That.

Moderator: Starline

Postby s1 on Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:58 pm

In the case Candi really is pregnant.

I believe she must tell to Alex because he have the right to know he have a child.

I'm not totally sure but also I believe it will be unfair for Candi to have the kid alone, I pretty believe is both's responsability, to much for Candi to manage alone, and Candi didn't get pregnant on purpose for money or gets Alex agains his will.
User avatar
s1
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:35 pm

Postby Tarvok on Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:32 pm

If she is pregnant, I hope she does not abort. I agree that there are circumstances that might warrant abortion, I do not believe the State is in a position to make decisions of that nature, and thus I do not believe there ought to be a law (ESPECIALLY at the federal level, whether prohibiting or guaranteeing). However, I do NOT believe the use of abortion as a sort of "back-up contraception" is one of them. It is one thing to use barriers and such to prevent the creation of a new life. It is another thing entirely to destroy it, once created.

I do not believe a mother should be held accountable to the state where her fetus is concerned; that matter should be between herself, the father, her family, her doctor, and ultimately, her God. But I find it quite difficult to respect a person for whom questions of life and death are simply questions of convenience.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Postby CidGregor on Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:00 pm

First time posting here in the Candi forum (Hiya EGS buddy Tarvok), because I really couldn't NOT say this.

So Now that the cat's out of the bag....

Am I the only one who's disappointed she's NOT pregnant?

And not just disappointed. Annoyed.

After a week or so of buildup, after several strips of Candi thinking about it, what do we get? "Oh, you're not pregnant, you felt sick cuz you ate ice cream and you're suddenly lactose intolerant which we never bothered to mention in three years of the comic."

I dunno about anyone else, but honestly, I feel like A) I was cheated, and B) My time was wasted. And maybe it's just a peeve of mine but I really hate having my time wasted.

So yeah...not really happy with that outcome.
"Nice guys finish last......but only because we have farther to go." - Lord Belgarion

"Lesbians are Neato!" - Tedd Verres

My EGS Fanfiction:
Twin Envy, ALTERNATE ENDING ADDED APRIL 23RD '08!
Basic Instinct, COMPLETED AUGUST 1ST '08!
User avatar
CidGregor
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:09 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Enaronia on Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:00 pm

blight182 wrote:as for what alex chooses well he has the choice to be a dead beat dad or not.

he already made the choice to be a father when he had sex so its not like he didnt have a choice in that eather

This applies equally well to women as to men.

I hate the double standard some people have here. Women don't have to be responsible at all, they can keep their child, put him/her up for adoption, or kill him/her off and how dare anyone try to interfere with her rights! Men had better do what the woman says, and how dare he be so irresponsible!

Going easy on women, and not expecting them to be responsible is sexism (and, frankly, is actually an aspect of sexism that is negative towards women).
Feel free to ignore me if I ramble too much. Or slap me, that works sometimes.
User avatar
Enaronia
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:28 pm
Location: Lurking around here

Postby Tuitsuro on Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:48 pm

Disappointed, not annoyed. Candi would have made a good mommy. Then again, now's not really the time for such things in her life, I suppose.

The lactose intolerance thing... Eh, it's understandable, you can become lactose intolerant later in life, it's not just something you're born with. Although, if it was an allergy then I would have thought she had a bad reaction to the carageenan in the ice cream, not the lactose. Which, could still be possible, what with carageenan being in a lot of dairy products it can be misdiagnosed.
User avatar
Tuitsuro
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3757
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:01 am

Postby CidGregor on Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:22 pm

it's a very specific kind of annoyed. Like a "Why have you, Starline, the author, wasted my time by telling us this story that was for all intents and purposes pretty much a pointless four or five strips?" kind of annoyed.
"Nice guys finish last......but only because we have farther to go." - Lord Belgarion

"Lesbians are Neato!" - Tedd Verres

My EGS Fanfiction:
Twin Envy, ALTERNATE ENDING ADDED APRIL 23RD '08!
Basic Instinct, COMPLETED AUGUST 1ST '08!
User avatar
CidGregor
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:09 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Starline on Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:43 pm

CidGregor wrote:it's a very specific kind of annoyed. Like a "Why have you, Starline, the author, wasted my time by telling us this story that was for all intents and purposes pretty much a pointless four or five strips?" kind of annoyed.


:oops: I thought it was funny.... and since the story was based on when I found out I was lactose intolerant I figured I'd share. Discovering you can no longer delight in the awesomeness of dairy was a tramatic and life changing experience, kinda like pregnancy.... ( >_> ).

Here is a picture of when I discovered Lactaid, lactose free milk:
Image
(Which enables me to this day continue to have my glass of chocolate milk in the morning.... I went through some withdrawals before someone told me about this. :D )
Last edited by Starline on Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Starline
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 8:40 am
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Pregnant?!

Postby Tarvok on Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:47 pm

Tarvok wrote:That is, assuming this isn't a false alarm. Way to toy with your audience's emotions, Starline! And I mean that in the most sincere, good way: you're a master at this!


I bow to your awesome skills, madame. You really had me going there, and I must say, I enjoyed the trip!
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Postby CidGregor on Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:31 am

It's not that big a deal, really,Starline, it's just like....I dunno, I thought maybe it was starting in on a long-running plotline that would maybe, say, mature Candi a little bit, maybe help her evolve beyond Alex, and then....nothing. It's a serious, three or four strip buildup to a gag punchline, and I guess that just didn't get me laughing. Maybe because I was in the mood for some drama, who knows.
"Nice guys finish last......but only because we have farther to go." - Lord Belgarion

"Lesbians are Neato!" - Tedd Verres

My EGS Fanfiction:
Twin Envy, ALTERNATE ENDING ADDED APRIL 23RD '08!
Basic Instinct, COMPLETED AUGUST 1ST '08!
User avatar
CidGregor
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:09 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Starline on Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:08 am

Well, she's still just a freshman in college. It will be a while before she "matures". Plus, a having an unplanned pregancy is a horrible way to 'mature' someone. It wouldn't have worked on Candi and that kid would have been all sorts of messed up.
User avatar
Starline
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 8:40 am
Location: Miami, Fl

Postby CidGregor on Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:28 am

Which I suppose is exactly the reason I wondered why you dangled that non-existent plot thread in front of us at all. It was kind of a no-win situation. Either you screw up your main character or you waste everyone's time making them worry about nothing.

But I dunno. Maybe I just took it too seriously.
"Nice guys finish last......but only because we have farther to go." - Lord Belgarion

"Lesbians are Neato!" - Tedd Verres

My EGS Fanfiction:
Twin Envy, ALTERNATE ENDING ADDED APRIL 23RD '08!
Basic Instinct, COMPLETED AUGUST 1ST '08!
User avatar
CidGregor
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:09 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Starline on Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:09 am

CidGregor wrote:Maybe I just took it too seriously.


Yep.
User avatar
Starline
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 8:40 am
Location: Miami, Fl

Postby Sage Blackthorn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:26 pm

Enaronia wrote:This applies equally well to women as to men.

I hate the double standard some people have here. Women don't have to be responsible at all, they can keep their child, put him/her up for adoption, or kill him/her off and how dare anyone try to interfere with her rights! Men had better do what the woman says, and how dare he be so irresponsible!


Thank you, I agree. Both parties share the responsebility.

Tarvok wrote:I do not believe a mother should be held accountable to the state where her fetus is concerned; that matter should be between herself, the father, her family, her doctor, and ultimately, her God. But I find it quite difficult to respect a person for whom questions of life and death are simply questions of convenience.


There is, unfortunetly, an entire generation that believes abortion is a form of contraception. I've run into plenty of people like that and I generally don't tend to get along with them.

It's a mess anyway you look at it. We can either attempt to consciously control our reproduction and thereby our population levels, and deal with social uncomfortable problems like contraception and abortion. Or we can breed like rabbits to the point we outstrip out resources and everyone starves to death, bringing our population back down to what the world can support again..... and probably wiping out thousands of species in the process as we try to feed everyone.

Personally, I'd rather there not be so many humans in the world that it takes a huge famine to wake people up as to the dangers of over-population.

Sage
"Sometimes, the way you THINK it is, isn't the way it really is at all." --St. Orin--

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." --Yoda--

"If the world is to be saved, it will not be saved by old minds with new programs. If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by new minds and no programs at all." "No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one. "--Daniel Quinn, The Story of B--
User avatar
Sage Blackthorn
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Riverside, California

Postby Starline on Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:23 pm

Sage Blackthorn wrote:Personally, I'd rather there not be so many humans in the world that it takes a huge famine to wake people up as to the dangers of over-population.

Sage


I can't remember where I learned about this, but if I recall correctly, they said the way to control over population would be to just improve the economies in 2nd and 3rd world countries. The idea was that in places where people are economically stable, the people tend to choose to have less children in general because you dont need tons of children to help the family survive.
User avatar
Starline
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 8:40 am
Location: Miami, Fl

Postby Sage Blackthorn on Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:44 pm

Starline wrote:I can't remember where I learned about this, but if I recall correctly, they said the way to control over population would be to just improve the economies in 2nd and 3rd world countries. The idea was that in places where people are economically stable, the people tend to choose to have less children in general because you dont need tons of children to help the family survive.


As it was explained to me, there is a a correlation between food production and population levels. Long ago, when humans lived by nature's rules, you either controlled your population, or famine set in and people starved. You had to think of the good of the tribe as a whole first. Even then, sometimes climate changes precipitated a drop in the food supply and people grew hungry or they migrated to an area with more food. In such a society, you had to maintain a fine balance between the population and the land, or starve.

Agriculture changed all that. By taking active control of their food supply, agricultural societies were caught in an end-loop cycle. You grow your food, soon you realize that you need a surplus to get you through the winter. You have to grow more food than you can eat at the moment, which means it needs to be stored. Others discover you have a store of food when they are hungry and attempt to take it. Now you need to guard your food if you are to survive the winter. You can't guard it and work your farm at the same time, so you need others. Either hired guards, or children who's job it is to keep the lock on the barn closed. In any case, it's more mouths to feed, which means you have to grow more food. Growing more food means tilling more land, which means you need more help, which means more mouths to feed, and so and so forth. Every increase in food production is met with a corresponding increase in population.

Soon the pattern is set that the wealthiest families have the most children to work the land and keep others from stealing from them. Large families are equated with wealth and esteem. People see the pattern, and want to follow it to become wealthy and admired.

Now that that social pattern is set, here comes a foreigner with technologies that allow the farmers to grow the same amount of food with few people, but at the expense of throwing vast amounts of energy into the land instead of human labor. Machines replace workers, fuel replaces the workers food. Chemical fertizers artificially increase the crop yields. All of which much be brought in from outside the area, at great expense processing and shipping. Which means the farmer must grow more, part to sell to pay for the new technology.

Add to this that the old social paradigm that equate large families with wealth and prestige is still in effect. A wealthy farmer or shepherd must have a large family as a sign of his wealth, or loose face with his neighbors.

With new technology comes new medicine that cures disease and extends average life spans. This means a higher rate of survival among the newborn and a lower death rate among the elderly. People are still having many babies because their social rules and traditions haven't caught up with the technology. Social pressures that say women should have many babies, pressures born out of the high rate of infant mortality, have yet to change. So you have high birth rates, low death rates, and viola! there is a population explosion.

What needs to happen for the population to stabilize is for the culture to catch up the technology it's employing. The population growth happens in the interim between when the technology is developed/introduced and when the culture changes to accept and integrate it into daily life. Before, whent he baby was sick, you took them to the village shaman to be prayed over. More often than not the baby dies. So high birth rates compensated the equally high infant mortallity rates. Now, when the baby is sick, you take it to the village doctor, who proscribes medication, that cures the disease. This baby survives and grows to adulthood. No need then for such high birthrates because the infant mortality rates has dropped as well.

The problem, then, is a social and cultural one, not one of economics. In helping to develop 2nd and 3rd world economies, new technology must be imported. That new technology stimulates population growth under the old social paradigm, which doesn't stop until the new paradigm is reached, and the old ways change to adapt to that new technology. This doesn't mean that new technology is bad, only that it's dangerous to introduce it to a people before they are ready for it. It's like giving a monkey a lit match and a stick of dynamite. Monkey see, monkey do. Seeing us wield technology with confidence, it will do as we do. But not understanding it's dangers, it's highly likely to destroy itself using something it doesn't fully understand.

Sage
"Sometimes, the way you THINK it is, isn't the way it really is at all." --St. Orin--

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." --Yoda--

"If the world is to be saved, it will not be saved by old minds with new programs. If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by new minds and no programs at all." "No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one. "--Daniel Quinn, The Story of B--
User avatar
Sage Blackthorn
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Riverside, California

Postby Tarvok on Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:46 pm

And the best measure of whether or not people are ready for new technology is whether or not they can afford to import it at their own expense. If, to combat hunger, you introduce new farming methods (for their benefit, not because they're making it worth your while, materially) and they take, people grow more food, their population explodes, something happens (a disease strikes the crop, a drought, a war) and now you have a starvation problem worse than before.

Another thing that can cause a general poverty problem is if you have someone come from without, usurp the people's rights to their land (generally by bribing a figurehead government... erm, I mean buying it from a figurehead government). At first, this doesn't seem like a problem, since people who are used to busting their butts on a farm for little return now have the option of working in a factory or what not, which means wages rise across the board... until enough people are moving in and buying up the land that the farming option disappears for many. After that, you have a large population of landless poor who are basically at the mercy of those that own the land. For these people, wages can now drop, since they can no longer provide their own competition for their own labor.

I think urban populations naturally tend to limit their reproductive rate. Indeed, there was a time in Europe when the cities, without immigration from the countryside, actually had negative population growth. Only a constant stream of immigrants kept them from disappearing altogether. But when offspring provide not only a possible source of labor, but also companionship otherwise absent, having many kids is quite attractive. When you're constantly surrounded by people, many of them strangers, I imagine the impulse to have children drops considerably.

Personally, I think an equilibrium between rural fertility and urban sterility(?) is the natural state for human societies. I think you need land traditions/policies that allows for considerably more turnover (or less stratified access) between urban and rural communities for this to occur, though. Practices that raise entry barriers for either end of the spectrum can probably keep this equilibrium from forming.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Postby blight182 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:17 am

Tragedy of the Commons

When you have a finite resorce that everyone has access to unless you have laws that prevent it from being abused it will be destroyed if you have a corrupt government it will eather no longer be available to everyone or will be destroyed.

1 person tossing litter in a forest wont do anything 10,000 people being mindless will.
blight182
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:55 pm

Postby Marcos on Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:57 pm

Sage Blackthorn wrote:Agriculture changed all that. By taking active control of their food supply, agricultural societies were caught in an end-loop cycle. You grow your food, soon you realize that you need a surplus to get you through the winter. You have to grow more food than you can eat at the moment, which means it needs to be stored. Others discover you have a store of food when they are hungry and attempt to take it. Now you need to guard your food if you are to survive the winter. You can't guard it and work your farm at the same time, so you need others. Either hired guards, or children who's job it is to keep the lock on the barn closed. In any case, it's more mouths to feed, which means you have to grow more food.


The link between agriculture and population growth is more direct than that: in any viable farming area, a person can produce more food in an average year than they can eat. More people working your farm means more surplus, which can be stored for bad times or traded away. Having a large family is the easiest way to get more workers -- after all, hiring workers means you need to pay them, and they're going to want a share of the surplus.
Image
User avatar
Marcos
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 2:53 am
Location: Spokane, Washington, USA

Postby oenone on Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:24 am

Sage Blackthorn wrote:
Enaronia wrote:This applies equally well to women as to men.

I hate the double standard some people have here. Women don't have to be responsible at all, they can keep their child, put him/her up for adoption, or kill him/her off and how dare anyone try to interfere with her rights! Men had better do what the woman says, and how dare he be so irresponsible!




honestly, tho, until there's a better way to have babies (IE not in someone's uterus), then that's the way it is. and honestly, if you don't think it takes a fair amount of responsibility to keep a child, get it into the adoption system, or arrange to have an abortion, then i'm not sure we can have a coherant argument about that. you can't just roll up on a planned parenthood anytime you feel like to get an exam, an abortion, or even birth control pills.
oenone
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:26 am

Postby Sage Blackthorn on Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:15 pm

oenone wrote:honestly, tho, until there's a better way to have babies (IE not in someone's uterus), then that's the way it is. and honestly, if you don't think it takes a fair amount of responsibility to keep a child, get it into the adoption system, or arrange to have an abortion, then i'm not sure we can have a coherant argument about that. you can't just roll up on a planned parenthood anytime you feel like to get an exam, an abortion, or even birth control pills.


Especially not when there is a crowd of potential domestic terrorists picketing outside the clinic, with a few possibly carrying concealed weapons. (Don't laugh, it's happened before.)

I'm assuming you were responding to Enoronia's post that I quoted, but I feel the need to jump in here with a little more historical perspective on the subject:

A long, long time ago the man's role in reproduction was not known or understood. Lineage was traced through the mother's line, because you always knew who your mother was. In many cases, marriage was as simple as a man and a women living together, and divorce was as simple as the woman moving all the man's belongings outside of the dwelling. In many cases, it was the tradtion that the man went to live with the woman's family upon marriage. Children were very attached to their mothers and their maternal Uncles, while the father played less of a role. Indeed, "fathers" could come and go, as the family was less dependant on them for sustenance than on the garde plots that were owned and overseen by the women. In such a society, children were the Mother's responsebility, because she and her sisters were the major providers.

While this is not a true Matriarchal culture (The Anasasi Indians of Chaco Canyon and Canyon De Chelly, if you want to research it), it was Matrilieaner (descent reckned through the mother) and Matriolocal (husband moves in with the Bride's family) and women played a larger role than men in providing food for the family. Men's jobs were more about dealing with other tribes, defense of the village, etc..... but the women ruled the household.

Now compare this to the a Patrilinear and Patrilocal culture where traditionally, in the past at least, the Man is the primary provider for the family as well as being in charge of defense, dealing with other nations, etc. etc. The balance of power, AND repsonsbility, shifts considerably to the male side of society leaving the woman as a second class citizen. In many Patriarchal cultures, women were considered chattel possessions. "Owned" first by the fathers, and next by their husbands, and having no rights of her own outside of those two relationships. Up until recently, the 1960's perhaps, this was the model our own society followed in practice if not in word. The man worked, the woman stayed at home and raised the children. It was the man's responsebility to provide for his offspring.

Society began to change with the Suffrage Movement. Then World War II happened, all the men went off to defend their "village" from an enemy "tribe". This left the women to fill the void left in the economy. I'm sure everyone remembers Rosie The Riveter, women working in factories and doing "men's jobs". What began with the Suffrage Movement really kicked into high gear as women demanded to be treated as equals. Equal rights, "Equal Pay for Equal Work" was their battle cry.......... but what many people to this day fail to undertstand is that with Equal Rights comes Equal Responsebility. To be judge equal to men meant that women could no longer be considered frail, or "the fairer sex". No longer to be placed on the pedestal, they chose to jump down into the mud with the other half of society and get their hands dirty.

As our society continues (no, we're not quite there yet, we're still in transition) to move into a more egalitarian social model, where both mother and father work and provide EQUALLY for the family, the idea that it is one or the other of the parents who's "responseble" for the children becomes laughable. Only those who still resist this social change cling to values that do not mesh with the current reality of life. When the Man was the sole provider for the family, it was the man's responsebility to feed and care for not only his children, but his wife as well. In earlier cultures where the women was the primary provider, it was her responsebility.

Now, however, where the roles of both male and female are understood to share an equal part in reproduction. Where both men and women work and provide for their family and are, in theory if not always in practice, considered equal. (And remember, this is how the women wanted it way back when they demanded and marched and went on hunger strikes for equal treatement.) BOTH parents are equally responsible for their children under the current prevailing social paradigm. And this creates all manner of confusion when it comes to the subject of conception, birth, or abortion. Because if each parent is equally responseble, they they have equal say in whether the child is born or not. When both parent agree, yes or no, there is no probem. But when they disagree there is no end to the social, legal, or moral mess that is created.

It could be solved sensebly if whomever wanted the child to be born accepted SOLE responsebility for it. If the woman wants the child and the man does not, then she must provide for it. No child support payments, no garnishing of the man's wages. She accepts responsebility for her choice. If the man wants it, then he pays all the mothers expenses during pregnancy and when born, the child goes to live with him as the primary caregiver and provider. In cases were the are married or live together, there is no clear answer. Can they afford another child? Can they give it a good home and provide for it? If they cannot agree on these questions, then perhaps divorce is the only answer. Equal rights, equal responsebility, equal treatment.

But because there are still lingering beliefs from the last era when it was considered the man's sole responsebility, men are often forced under the law to support and care for a child they may not have wanted for a variety of reasons. If they refuse, they are called "dead beat dads". They are force to be responseble for the choice of another person who in effect has denied their equal rights in the procreation process. No one ever talkes about "dead beat moms", however.

While in theory our society spouts credos of Equal Rights Under The Law, in practice, by and large, it still holds to the very unequal social structure of the 1800's and before. We are still in a period of social transition, still adjusting to the concept of equality among the sexes in all things. Some hold to the new values, some hold to the old. Between the two conflict is inevitable, and will remain so until the old paradigm re-asserts itself (in which case ladies, you loose all your equal rights and go back up on the pedestal to become chattel property, to stay at home with the kids while the husband provides..........highly unlikely given the current social climate, I don't think any of you would stand for it) or the new paradigm becomes fully accepted (in which case all the old "archaic" laws based on the old paradigm will be abolished or merely no longer enforced, and the new mode of thought will hold sway and there will be no more arguements over things like abortion, birth control, etc..... it will be left up the individuals involved to solve. What that new way of thinking will be I can't say for sure, if I could then we'd already be IN the next social paradigm).

How is it you guys get me going on such long winded posts these day? <deep> I'm tired now!

Sage
"Sometimes, the way you THINK it is, isn't the way it really is at all." --St. Orin--

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." --Yoda--

"If the world is to be saved, it will not be saved by old minds with new programs. If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by new minds and no programs at all." "No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one. "--Daniel Quinn, The Story of B--
User avatar
Sage Blackthorn
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Riverside, California

Postby Tarvok on Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:57 pm

You write well, and think deeply. I don't know how many people actually take the time to read a post that long, but I do, and did. I was going to post my own personal experience with "egalitarian" marriage in a "patriarchal" context, but thought better of it. However, I wanted you to know that at least one person read that incredibly long post.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Postby oenone on Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:59 am

Tarvok wrote:You write well, and think deeply. I don't know how many people actually take the time to read a post that long, but I do, and did. I was going to post my own personal experience with "egalitarian" marriage in a "patriarchal" context, but thought better of it. However, I wanted you to know that at least one person read that incredibly long post.


i read it to, but didn't respond yet... mostly because i think that my main counterpoint (the present legal structures are unfair, but there's not a better way 'til there's a way to support a fetus w/out a uterus) wasn't addressed. :P
a pregnancy is a physically grueling process, as is labor. i'd be very uncomfortable with legally obligating someone to go through that because of a contraceptive accident and someone else's desire for a baby.
oenone
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:26 am

Postby Tarvok on Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:48 am

Ya know, it's not NEARLY so hard to avoid such "accidents" as some folks like to believe.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Postby oenone on Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:20 am

Tarvok wrote:Ya know, it's not NEARLY so hard to avoid such "accidents" as some folks like to believe.


your ability to avoid "accidents" depends on access and education.
oenone
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:26 am

Postby Sage Blackthorn on Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:15 pm

oenone wrote:your ability to avoid "accidents" depends on access and education.


Yay! Someone got the point! Access and education are highly lacking in our current society, as is personal responsebility.

oenone wrote:i read it to, but didn't respond yet... mostly because i think that my main counterpoint (the present legal structures are unfair, but there's not a better way 'til there's a way to support a fetus w/out a uterus) wasn't addressed. :P


Have patience, I'm getting to it. I agree the present legal structure is unfair all around. But it is that way because it is an outgrowth of the society that writes and enforces the laws that make up the present legal structure. Therefor the root cause of the problem is still culture. Change the culture's vision of itself in the world and the laws will change to follow that vision.

As for having a pregnancy without a uterus, that is pure science fiction at the present, so it doesn't need to be addressed. Unless you want to try transplanting a fertilized human egg into another species to carry to term and give birth to, but I wouldn't recommend it for two reason: PETA and the religious right would be all over anyone who tried it. And my gut feeling is that were there a way to have a baby without going through the process of pregnancy and labor then unforseen consequences would make the situation much worse. With that level of technology not only would humans be able to crank out mass produced children, they would likely also be able to manipulate there genes to an unheard of degree and that I find a bit scarey.

a pregnancy is a physically grueling process, as is labor. i'd be very uncomfortable with legally obligating someone to go through that because of a contraceptive accident and someone else's desire for a baby.


The suggestion wasn't serious, I used it as a counter example for when women legally obligate men to "have a baby" and be fathers when they don't want to. It was ment to show that 1) we are not a truely equal culture, even though everyone pass lipservice to this ideal in public but fails to "walk the walk" in private. and 2) to point out just how unfair the legal system really is because of the cultural/religious influence behind it that says "Go forth and multiply". A concept that was outdated centuries ago, and is one of the prime reasons the world is over-populated now.

Sage
"Sometimes, the way you THINK it is, isn't the way it really is at all." --St. Orin--

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." --Yoda--

"If the world is to be saved, it will not be saved by old minds with new programs. If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by new minds and no programs at all." "No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one. "--Daniel Quinn, The Story of B--
User avatar
Sage Blackthorn
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Riverside, California

 
PreviousNext

Return to Candi

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests