AncapFTW

No, and I named exceptions. (rape, tricking the other person into using known faulty birth control, accepting responsibility from another person or giving letting another person take it) No, because when someone adopts the child they agree to take her responsibility for themselves. The same happens if one parent says "I'll raise them, I don't need anything from you." to the other parent. I didn't ignore the other parent, I was just talking about fathers because that was the parent everyone else was talking about, including the OP, and it's the one that stereotypically tries to get out of child support. This applies to both of them equally. The principle is already well established, so I was demonstrating with illustrations. I wasn't trying to defend the principle, just saying that I applied it to this as well. Depends on the specifics. There are exceptions to every rule, so saying "all" biological parents should have to pay child support doesn't work.. In fact, I'd already said that in cases of rape and them purposely increasing the risk they took all of the responsibility for themselves.

Taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions is already a universal principle, but we can explore how it applies to pregnancy. You degree of responsibility is dependent on you having complete culpability for the actions, and a complete knowledge (within reason) of the risks or consequences involved, and on whether anyone else alters those chances or consequences. For example, if I'm stopped at a red light and someone purposefully rear ends me, the are completely responsible for the injuries to myself and my property because they drastically altered the risk by purposely making the injuries happen. If I go sky diving and the company gives me a parachute with a hole in it, they are responsible for my injuries because they gave me faulty equipment which they are responsible for inspecting. The first is analogous to a rape, the second to someone purposely using defective birth control or lying bout using it. In either case, the actions of the other person has shifted the responsibility. If, however, the car wreck was an actual accident (say a dog or tree limb in the road makes me swerve off of the road) or the sky diving injuries were accidental, the responsibility is still mine, as agreeing to the risk is part of agreeing to the activity. Now, one side can choose to take full responsibility, but that is up to them. Full responsibility can't be forced on the other party involved by one side refusing to take responsibility. The fact that the consequence is a moral agent complicates things, as both parties also have a responsibility to them as well, but I can't think of a valid analogy for that.

Learn the test and answer how they want you to. The first three questions are too black and white for me to answer, so I didn't get past them and didn't bother taking the test.

No, I'm not using a situation in which I'm using a service I have to pay for. Even if I was, the situation is still analogous to having an affair and accidentally getting her pregnant. At that point you owe her and the child in the same way you owe the casino or the person who's car you hit. But are you saying NOT paying child support can be universalized? Are you saying that getting women pregnant and then deciding you don't want deal with the child can be universalized? I don't know about your situation, but when people do mental backflips to try and defend hurting other people, they usually have a good reason for it. Wanting to rationalize not paying child support would be a good reason. Maybe you aren't in that situation, but if you aren't, can you please explain why you don't want men to have to take responsibility for their own children?

since I didn't do that, I don't know why you'd leave, but goodbye anyway.

I've never read the book, but I bought the movies at Walmart this week.

I don't explicitly consent to losing money when I gamble. I don't explicitly consent to paying for the damage to another person's car when I drive. Both of those are implicit in the act because they are accidental. The fact that they can let you out of your debts doesn't matter, you still have a responsibility unless they let you out. In the same way the consent to be responsible for a child is implicit in the consent to have the only form of sex that can result in a child. Even then, your debt isn't primarily to the mother, but the child, who doesn't have the understanding necessary to make a decision about you paying child support, and therefore can't let you out of your obligation until they are at least a teenager. Yeah, but the other guy was and I didn't think to post it until after I responded to him, so, instead of making three posts, I tacked it on to the end. I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that you don't want to pay child support, but want to keep having sex. Instead of simply accepting the risk or eliminating it by not engaging the form of sex that can result in a child, you are doing mental backflips to try and "reason" your way out of it, the consequences to the woman and child be damned.

Well, that proves the Garden of Eden existed, then.

I've already covered these in my post to Nathan, but I'll cover them briefly here. 85% of pregnancies (including atypical pregnancies, early miscarriages, etc. which aren't terminated result in live birth. The woman doesn't have to do anything for the child to be born, that's automatic. You are basically saying that because she didn't choose to kill the child that she chose to take full responsibility for it. That, by the way, would be an implied contract, which you don't like, so I don't know why you are using it. Also, she only has a legal "right" to have an abortion, not a moral right (outside of it threatening her life) so you are arguing legality. No, I don't see how it can be used to support social contracts. "Social Contracts" exist without your consent or even your knowledge. Implied contracts require your consent to the activity they are a part of, and your general knowledge of the boundaries and restrictions put on you because of that consent. --- Just to cover a previous comment that I think will shed light on your argument. "1)Sex is something good in and of itself. Sex is something human's pursue because it feels good. Not just because they want kids. Most sex is casual sex." No, it isn't. It is inherently neutral. If it was good, there wouldn't be so many restrictions placed on it both by societies and individuals. The fact that it "feels good" has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is morally good. Rape "feels good" for one party, maybe even both in a way, but does that make it good? Eating junk food feels good. Does that make it good? Is it also "good" to use recreational drugs? How often it is specifically for the creation of children is immaterial to the conversation as well. Children are a possibility any time two fertile people of opposite genders you engage in a certain form of sex. If you don't want to risk having children, then reduce that risk to zero by either not having that form of sex, or making sure that your partner is completely infertile.

The child will be born with or without her choices at this point unless she she make the choice to end the child's live, which is a legal "right" not a moral right. Look up "coma test". Because you had an equal part in the creation of it, and it is a moral agent. That means that you can't simply abandon it as you would an object. Sure, if you don't believe in taking responsibility for your own actions. in all three examples the child is the result of a risk you were willing to take. Yes, if she chose to keep the child against your wishes, she takes on more responsibility for the child, but that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to the other person involved, ie. the child. Wait, so you realize that single parenthood causes problem, but support something that increases single parenthood, ie. the man not having any responsibility to the child unless he wants to. You consider holding someone responsible for a situation they put themselves into to be "slavery", but would force a woman to either have an abortion or spend the next 18 years of their life taking responsibility for the result of both your actions. Sounds to me like you don't understand the definition of "hypocrisy". Yet you shouldn't have to be responsible for your accidental harm of both people because you didn't explicitly consent to it in writing? Does that mean a murder has to explicitly consent to being responsible for his crimes? Do I have to explicitly consent to being responsible for the injuries I cause if I randomly fire bullets into the air?

So, you have no responsibility for something which you caused to happen (accidentally) by your own actions because no aggression was used? So, if I fire off a gun randomly and shoot someone, I'm not responsible for them being injured. If I fire off a bottle rocket and it lands on my neighbor's roof, catching their house on fire, I'm not responsible for that because I didn't do it on purpose? And that doesn't even account for the fact that in the actual situation we were discussing there is now another person involved, one which was created accidentally by your actions and which has no fault in this, yet will be harmed by your chosen actions if you don't take responsibility for the results of your actions. You are using legality to argue ethics and then, when I point out that there is a moral issue with it which is separate from the legal issue, and that your idea of how to fix the legal issue would actually be immoral, you accuse me of special pleading. Legality and morality are not the same, and whether or not something is moral has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal. And then you accuse me of supporting something which I already said this wasn't. So, you name a bunch of ways in which men and women are equal in responsibility, one way in which they aren't due to legal reasons, not natural law or logical reason, and then assert that "it's almost all her responsibility". Can you explain to me how a law has any bearing on the morality of the situation? You then name three ways a woman could get pregnant when both parties didn't want it, and , because two of the situations are fraud, which is a form of aggression, you assume that it isn't the same as my example even though all three of those are analogous to my example. Literally every interaction you have with another person has implied boundaries to it. Wile UPB covers many of these, there are also social conventions which exist. For example, though the forum rules don't explicitly state it, topics should be placed in their proper category and you should only talk about the thread's topic or something related to it in a thread. I'm also pretty certain the rules don't outright ban NSFW images, but people don't post them because it's understood that you shouldn't post stuff like that in a debate thread unless it's necessary to the discussion. Just try to imagine life without understood boundaries, where everyone can do whatever they want as long as there isn't violence or an explicit contract involved and tell me if that's really the way you want things to be. In fact, I'm fairly certain the need for all interactions to b governed by explicit, signed, written contract can't be UPB because it could never be signed in the first place without the agreed upon convention of language.

A man walks into a brothel. "If I pay $100," he asks, "How much does the girl get?" "Well, this isn't a union brothel, so we split it 50/50." the Madam said. The man didn't like that, so he went to another brothel. "If I pay $100, how much does the girl get?" "Well, this is a union brothel, so we get 10%, they get 90%." said the Madam. "Good," he said, "I'll take the 20 something blonde over there." The madam motioned to the girls and an 80 year old woman came over with her walker. "Actually," said the Madam, "Ethel here has seniority, so..."

Anyone here ever watch the "Chapelle Show"? They did a skit on this, but with paper contracts. I'll try and find it on YouTube to attach it. Edit: Bad quality.

If you don't have what the customer wants, why wouldn't you refer them to someone else? You lose nothing, but gain their trust. I do this all the time.

Pregnancy has a physical and monetary cost, and abortion has a monetary cost. Raising the child, which results from a consensual relationship you both had, is a huge cost. The fact that one person has a way out and the other person doesn't means that the contract isn't fair, not that you have no responsibility for the costs you caused her. Should one parent have all of the choice for the child's life? No, but that doesn't mean that one party has no responsibility to something they accidentally created. ---- An implied contract is essentially the unspoken bounds on what they agree to that are automatically understood due to social convention. For example, let's say a business executive lets an old friend of his that is now homeless crash on his couch for the night because it's storming. The next morning the homeless friend uses his bathroom, takes a shower, drinks a cup of coffee, borrows his BMW and a business suit, and goes to meet a guy for a job interview. The bathroom, maybe shower and coffee, are generally assumed to be a part of letting them crash on your couch. The BMW and suit aren't. If you tried to file charges for the bathroom, shower, or coffee, people would think you were being a bit ridiculous. Not so for the BMW and suit. As another example, let's say you meet a woman in a bar and she comes over to your house for the night. All that was explicitly agreed to was sex, and even that is contingent on continued acceptance of the agreement. Does that mean you can bill her for a condom? How about a night's rent for staying there? For using your bathroom? For taking a shower? For a cup of coffee the next morning? If, on the other hand, you catch an STD from her when she knew she could infect you, would you just say "well, that's just my responsibility" and and cover the cost yourself? What if it was something that can't be cured, like HIV?

Except that you are burning hydrocarbons, not carbon. I know that if you burn methane you get water and co2, so ?ch4 + ?O2 = ?h20 + ? CO2. The ? are numbers, but I don't remember how it balances.

Well, you caused her to incur a cost that she wouldn't have had without your action, so, yeah, it is harm. That doesn't even consider the health problems she's now at risk for, or the fact that you chose to risk producing someone who can't provide for themselves for at least another decade. The same goes for the car. And how does her ability to nullify the contract mean it doesn't exist? do corporate contracts cease to exist when an escape clause is added? Also social contract =/= implied contract.

There was an implied contract when they had consentual sex. If you loan me your car, theres an implied contract that I'll pay any traffic fines I incur while using it, and will pay to fix it if I am at fault in a wreck with it. Also, he accidentally caused her harm by getting her pregnant.

The only market I can think of is for fetal stem cells in medicine, but I've heard of people being treated with their own stem cells and of a group that turned skin cells into stem cells, so I don't see a need for them. They are much cheaper as they are medical waste, though.

I thought they used fluoride,

The improved version Nasa is working with only requires about a ton of negative matter/energy. Of course, that's more than the world's yearly output of energy by quite a bit, but at least it's not as bad as it used to be. I've just heard several people saying that it would violate causality, so I was wondering how that could be possible.

This kind of reminds me of Scott Manley, who does twitch video games, but talks about the science behind the games while he's doing it. They are mostly sciencey games, though, like KSP. Not sure what games fit well with Anarchy, NAP, or Atheism, though. Bioshock, maybe? Of "the binding of Issac?"

I know it has nothing to do with politics, but: Why would a warp drive violate causality? I understand that a person from an external frame of reference behind you would see you as moving backward in time, and from in front of you they would see you as arriving before they saw you leave. Isn't that really a matter of the limitation of your detection equipment, though? After all, if I tried to track a super-sonic jet with sonar, or tracked the location of its sonic boom, I would get the same effect. And if you could travel FTL, wouldn't that mean you could transfer information FTL, making the person's perception meaningless?

I was concidering creating a "don't feed the trolls" topic too, but you did a way better job then I could have. Thank you.

Can you please explain why monogamy is necessary for any of those societal traits? How is mutual respect and private property not possible outside of monogamy? It seems to me that a society in which children are raised by more people, instead of just two who essentially own them until they get older, would have more mutual respect and a greater understanding of private property.